Skip to main content

Full text of "The New States Alaska And Hawaii"

See other formats


-.-.55 110.5 cop l 

kansas city 
public library 
kansas city, 



917.98 L34n 

Linefoerry, William P. , 
ed. en 

The new States: Alaska 
and Hawaii. 




Associate Editor, Foreign Policy Association 

NEW YORK 1963 


The books in this series reprint articles, excerpts from books, and 
addresses on current issues, social trends, and other aspects of American 
life, and occasional surveys of foreign countries. There are six separately 
bound numbers in each volume, all of which are generally published in 
the same calendar year. One number is a collection of recent speeches 
on a variety of subjects; each of the remaining numbers is devoted to a 
single subject and gives background information and discussion from 
varying points of view, followed by a comprehensive bibliography. 

Subscribers to the current volume receive the books as issued. The 
subscription rate is $12 ($15 foreign) for a volume of six numbers. 
The price of single numbers is $3 each. 

Copyright 1963 

By The H. W. Wilson Company 

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 63-21856 



Surely no two states in the American Union of fifty are as 
alike and yet as different as the new states, Alaska and 

Consider the striking similarities: Both states are the latest to 
join the Union, having come to each other's aid in the long and 
agonizing quest for entry. Both are the only noncontiguous states, 
Alaska being separated from the mainland forty-eight by another 
nation (Canada) , Hawaii by a vast expanse of ocean (the Pacific) . 
Both states (even if for vastly different reasons) are considered 
tourist paradises and are heavily dependent upon tourism for 
their livelihood. Both play a key role in the nation's defense 
Alaska bulking within sight of the Soviet Union across the Bering 
Strait, Hawaii anchored in the Pacific as a forward staging area 
for America's Far Eastern defenses. Both states have advanced 
political systems, with up-to-date constitutions that are models of 
progressive good government. And in spirit, both are character- 
ized by the same open-hearted friendliness, the same congenial 
attitude of tolerance and brotherhood, from which the other 
states might well take example. 

Despite these and other similarities, however, the two states 
are dramatically the opposite of each other in many ways. Alaska 
is the largest and least densely populated. Hawaii is one of the 
smallest and most densely populated. Alaska's rugged, frozen 
wildernesses contrast sharply with Hawaii's balmy, sun-drenched 
tropicality. The one has an electrifying frontier history of men 
battling nature and the elements for gold and for land. The 
other embodies the romantic tale of a lush island kingdom 
wrapped in charm and innocence. 

Together, the new states make a fascinating study in same- 
ness, contrast and paradox. Having entered the Union less than a 
decade ago, how are Alaska and Hawaii faring under their new 
status? What advances have come with statehood? What prob- 
lems? And what are their prospects for the future, now that the 
initial excitement of a new and coveted standing has simmered 
down? i,;,,., '.' 


The first section of this book attempts to recapture the historic 
moments when Alaska and Hawaii won statehood. How was it 
achieved, what did it mean, and where did the new states stand 
upon entering the Union? The next section is devoted to contem- 
porary life and society in the new states, with special attention 
going to the "native" problem in Alaska and interracial relations 
in Hawaii. The third and fourth sections explore the political 
and economic meaning of statehood, respectively. New responsi- 
bilities have brought new burdens and new opportunities. How 
are Alaska and Hawaii dealing with these emerging conditions? 
The fifth and final section deals with defense, a matter of 
crucial concern to both states. 

The compiler wishes to thank the authors and publishers who 
have courteously granted permission for the reprinting of their 
materials in this book. I would also like to thank the staffs of 
Senators Ernest Gruening and E. L. Bartlett of Alaska and Sena- 
tor Hiram L. Fong of Hawaii for their cooperation and assistance. 
I am especially indebted to Katherine Woodroofe, whose able 
assistance in preparing the manuscript proved invaluable and 
made light an otherwise difficult task, 

September 1963 



Editor's Introduction 9 

Alaska's Rugged Past 10 

Map: Alaska Senior Scholastic 11 

Robert B. Atwood. Alaska's Struggle for Statehood 

State Government 14 

Thomas B. Stewart. What Statehood Means to Alaska 

State Government 25 

Background on the Forty-ninth State 

Social Legislation Information Service Bulletin 32 

Hawaii's Exotic Past 40 

Map: Hawaii News Explorer 41 

Lawrence H. Fuchs. Hawaii's Struggle for Statehood 46 

Robert M. Kamins. What Statehood Means to Hawaii .... 
State Government 58 

James A. Michener. Background on the Fiftieth State 

New York Times Magazine 65 


Editor's Introduction 74 


Harry Kursh. Life in Alaska 75 

Wendell H. Oswalt. A Look at Alaska's Natives 

Americas 87 

Theodore B. Hetzel. Problems Facing Alaska's Natives .... 
Indian Truth 93 

Andrew W. Lind. Race Relations Frontiers in Hawaii 99 

Andrew W. Lind. Race and Opportunity in Hawaii 

Social Process 111 


Editor's Introduction 114 

John S. Hellenthal. How Alaska Is Governed 

American Bar Association Journal 1 15 

Ernest Gruening. Alaska's Achievements Under Statehood 
Congressional Record 122 

Paul G Bartholomew and Robert M. Kamins. How Hawaii 
Is Governed American Bar Association Journal 125 

W. Brooke Graves. Hawaii's Centralized Government 135 

Gene Smith. Gains from Simplified Rule in Hawaii 

: New York Times 140 


Editor's Introduction 144 

Ivan Bloch. Alaska's Economy: A Summation 

Financial Analysts Journal 144 


Alaska's Economic Problems U.S. News & World Report 159 

Richard Austin Smith. Hawaii's Economy: Prospects and 
Problems Fortune 165 


Editor's Introduction 185 

Hanson W. Baldwin. Arctic Outpost in the Cold War 

New York Times Magazine 185 

Ernest Gruening and Richard L. Neuberger. Military Neglect 
of Alaska Charged Congressional Record 189 

Alaska: First Line of Defense 

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 192 

Hawaii's Defense-Geared Economy 194 




Both states have a word for it. In Alaska it's cheechako. In 
Hawaii it's malihini. They mean the same newcomer a word 
that fittingly describes the condition of the latest states to join 
the American Union, Alaska and Hawaii. Like newcomers every- 
where, the new states are not without their problems, as succeed- 
ing sections of this book will indicate. But first, for perspective, 
a flashback to those happy and hectic days attending statehood is 
in order. 

Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union in 1958 and 
1959, respectively. Congressional approval climaxed decades of 
petitioning, maneuvering, and beseeching by territorial delegates 
determined to add new stars to the flag. In the final moments, 
it was only through the mutual bolstering of each other's cause 
that statehood, somewhat rapidly and surprisingly, became a 
reality. How and why did Alaska and Hawaii win admission to 
the Union? And what did admission mean for the "other forty- 

The first four articles in this section discuss Alaska's history 
and its admission in 1958, the last four Hawaii's history and its 
admission in 1959. Following a brief historical survey, an 
Alaskan publisher describes his state's continuing endeavor to 
enter the Union, detailing the strategy that brought final victory. 
In the third article an active participant in the Alaskan statehood 
drive explains the advantages political and economic which 
statehood was expected to bring. The next article presents a fact- 
and-figure breakdown of the status of the forty-ninth state, its 
population resources and relation to the Federal Government, in 
the year of admission. 

After an introductory historical sketch, "Hawaii's Struggle for 
Statehood 1 ' gives a detailed and lively account of Hawaii's efforts 
to enter the Union. The next article presents a resident's view of 
what statehood means to Hawaii in terms of self-rule, the transi- 


tion from territorial status, and the economic and social impact 
on both Hawaii and the United States as a whole. In the final 
article, the noted novelist James A. Michener provides a glowing 
description of the fiftieth state, its people and culture, in the year 
of admission. 


Some historical and geographical experts believe that Asia and 
North America were connected by a land bridge long before the 
period of recorded history. Wandering native tribes from the 
continent of Asia came across this bridge to North America. 
While some of those dark-skinned people settled in Alaska, others 
went south to what is now Canada and the United States. This 
theory also explains the apparent similarities between the Alaskan 
natives and other North American Indian tribes. 

As early as 1579, a Russian Cossack named Yermak, in search 
of furs, had conquered Siberia for the Czars. By 1650, a perma- 
nent Russian settlement had been established at Anadyrsk, on 
the Bering Sea, within about four hundred miles of Alaska's 
nearest point. Russia was interested in further exploration to the 
east, but could not continue it because she became involved in a 
series of wars with China. 

Russian Exploration and Settlement 

Almost a century passed before the Russians ventured in the 
direction of Alaska again. In 1724, Peter the Great, a powerful 
and ambitious Czar, ordered Captain Vitus Bering, a Dane who 
had been in the Czar's service since childhood, to explore the 
land east of Siberia and see whether Asia and America were 
joined. Bering outfitted an expedition at Okhotsk, a village on 
the Siberian mainland across the Sea of Okhotsk from Kam- 
chatka, a large peninsula of southeastern Siberia. In 1728 he 
sailed into the sea now named for him and sighted the St. Law- 
rence Islands and the Diomedes. But winter was approaching 
rapidly, and he returned to Russia without seeing the mainland 
of Alaska. 

1 From A Pocket Guide to Alaska, pamphlet prepared by the Office of Armed Forces 
Information and Education. (DOD Pam 2-9) Department of Defense. Washington 25, 
D.C. '56. P 6-15. 



From Senior Scholastic. 56:10. My. 17, '50. Reprinted by permission from Senior 
Scholastic. 1950 by Scholastic Magazines, Inc. 

Bering organized another expedition in 1740, and with two 
ships again set sail for Alaska. Chirikof, in command of one of 
the ships, sailed along the southeastern coast and lost a landing 
party to hostile natives near Sitka. In the meantime, Bering 
skirted the south-central coast and made a landing near Mount 
St. Elias. On the way back his ship stranded on Bering Island 
where he and half of his men died from hardship and scurvy. 
The remnants of the expedition, after enduring more hardships, 
finally returned to Kamchatka and made their way back to 

Stimulated by the explorers' tales of fabulous wealth in the 
newly discovered land, Russian fur traders and trappers began to 


enter the area. These exploiters gradually depleted the country 
of furs and almost exterminated the sea otter. They enslaved the 
Aleuts and made war on the Indians. Everything went out of 
Alaska, and nothing came in. 

By 1800 a few Russian settlements had been established at 
Kodiak and on the Pribilof Islands. In the following years others 
sprang up along the mainland coasts of Alaska and Canada. At 
one time the Russians actually had a settlement at what is now 
Ross, Calif ornial 

Russian activity in and around Alaska aroused the interest of 
other nations eager to cash in on the rich fur trade. Between 
1774 and 1780, explorers from Spain and England made surveys 
along the Alaskan coast. It was Bering's explorations, however, 
that gave Russia her claim to northwestern North America. 

Wholesale killing of Alaska's natives was somewhat reduced 
when the Russian-American Company was organized in 1799. 
The company's charter, granted by the Czar, required it to pro- 
mote discovery and commerce and to spread the Russian Ortho- 
dox faith, a branch of the Christian religion. One of the early 
directors of this company was Alexander Baranof, whose word 
was law and who ruled accordingly. Under his direction, Sitka, 
the Russian capital of Alaska, became a highly cosmopolitan 
town and an extremely active business and trading center. It was 
Baranof and Russian missionary priests who founded the churches 
with their bulb-like steeples . . . principally in the Aleutians, 
at Kodiak, and at Sitka. . . . 

Reward's Folly" 

As early as 1855 the Russian Czar tried to sell Alaska to the 
United States. He feared Great Britain might take it anyway, 
because Russia was losing the Crimean War to Britain. Russia 
had other troubles, too. Her attention was being turned more 
and more toward Europe because of Prussia's growing military 
strength. For these reasons Russia believed that Alaska was a 
definite liability. 

Soon after the American Civil War ended, the Czar sent 
Baron de Stoeckl, an able diplomat, to Washington. The Czar's 
instructions were simple: Get rid of Alaskasell it if possible, 
give it away if necessary. 


After a considerable period and many conferences, the United 
States Secretary of State, William H. Seward, and the Baron 
finally signed a treaty on 30 March 1867, on behalf of their 
respective countries, for the United States to purchase Alaska for 
$7.2 million. 

Seward was severely criticized for agreeing to purchase Alaska. 
Many persons called the region "Seward's Folly" or "Seward's 
Icebox," because it was generally believed that the land was abso- 
lutely worthless. But, after much controversy, the United States 
Senate finally approved the treaty, and on 18 October 1867, the 
Great Land became American property. The Russian flag was 
lowered and Old Glory was hoisted. 

Still smarting at spending the sum of 2 cents an acre for 
what was thought to be an ice heap, Congress paid practically 
no attention to the new district (which became a territory in 
1912) for about seventeen years. During this period there was no 
civil government in Alaska, but it was governed at various times 
from Washington by the Army, the Navy, and the Treasury 
Department. Little exploration was done and little use was made 
of its natural resources. 

But were Seward alive today, few critical voices would be 
heard. From almost any standpoint the decision to buy Alaska 
has proved to be wise. Exports of fish, gold, and furs alone have 
repaid its purchase price many times over; and the land is rich 
in untapped resources. The production of gold, incidentally, has 
amounted to about $660 million. 


Who hasn't heard of gold strikes in Alaska? Klondike, Nome, 
Fairbanks, and others 1 The first strike was made in the Klondike 
in 1898. (Actually, the Klondike region is in Canada, but its most 
accessible route, before the airplane, was through southeastern 
Alaska via Skagway and the treacherous Chilkoot Pass.) Before 
the Klondike strike subsided, a fresh gold rush began at Nome. 
Within a few months eighteen thousand people jammed the 
short, desolate Nome beach in a feverish scramble. Again in 
1902, the magic word of "gold" came from the interior, and the 
"sourdoughs" (oldtimers) rushed to Fairbanks. 


During this period hard-boiled adventurers, miners, confi- 
dence men, gamblers, and opportunists came to Alaska by the 
thousands. Lights blazed in hotel lobbies until dawn. Bars and 
gambling houses never closed their doors, and beneath their 
chandeliers pistols barked and knives flashed. Our early West 
was tame compared to this period in Alaska's history! 

Fantastic prices accompanied the early gold strikes. Cheap 
whisky was dispensed across bars at $10 a shot. A few eggs were 
available at a dollar each. Turkey dinners cost $175 apiece. 
Traders, who set up shop right after the first stampeders arrived, 
reaped high profits selling grub, clothing, and equipment. No 
wonder pennies went out of fashion during this period every- 
thing was on the "gold standard"! (As a matter of fact, in the 
interior of Alaska, until recently, a quarter was the smallest coin 
in general circulation.) 

Much has been written about the fabulous gold strikes. Ad- 
venture stories and poetry favorites of many Americans tell 
about the men who made fortunes, those who went broke, and 
those who died in the stampedes. Rex Beach, Robert Service, and 
Jack London are some of the better-known writers who "panned" 
the literary gold. To this day Hollywood is mining that rich 

Although there haven't been any big gold strikes in recent 
years, interest in mining still runs high. Today a few "sour- 
dough" prospectors roam the hills, but modern mining is scien- 
tific. Engineering know-how has replaced hit-or-miss methods; 
necessary capital for mining operations now comes from cautious 
investors rather than from get-rich-quick "wildcatters." 


The idea, or dream, of statehood for Alaska dates back to the 
time of its purchase by the United States from Russia in 1867. 

Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, in a learned speech 
supporting ratification of the treaty of purchase, dedicated Alaska 
to future statehood. Two years after the purchase, Secretary of 
State William H. Seward, whose vision and courage brought 

2 Article by Robert B. Atwood, editor and publisher of the Anchorage (Alaska) 
Daily Times, chairman of the Alaska Statehood Committee, 1949-1959. State Govern- 
ment. 31:202-8. Autumn *58. Reprinted by permission. 


about the purchase, said in a speech at Sitka that Alaska would 
some day be one of the great states of the Union. . . . The 
enthusiasm of those two men, however, was not shared by the 
rest of Washington officialdom. Alaska was generally deemed of 
little value and was ignored. 

Congress was the ultimate authority on everything pertaining 
to the new American territory, and the prevailing sentiment in 
that body was a disparaging one. The members' attitude was 
that the nation was "stuck" with the useless northland area, 
and "we'll run it with the least expense possible." 

As a result of this attitude, the courageous Americans who 
went to Alaska found that they lived in a state of anarchy. 
There were no laws, no government in any form. People in 
Alaska could not own property. They could not marry. Upon 
death they could not be sure that the beneficiaries they named 
would get so much as their prospector's pick. 

The first political activity of Alaskans was to seek some form 
of government. Nothing as refined as statehood was within the 
realm of possibility. They sent delegations to Washington re- 
questing "any form of civil government." Seventeen years after 
the purchase, in 1884, Congress passed the first basic law and it 
proved to be totally inadequate. 

Alaskans continued sending representatives to Congress re- 
questing more adequate government. In 1906, just thirty-nine 
years after the purchase, Congress created the post of Delegate 
to Congress so that Alaskans could quit sending delegations at 
their own expense. The delegate, a voteless member of Congress, 
was to be their "voice." 

In 1912, Congress enacted an Organic Act to replace the old 
law of 1884. It created a territorial legislature with powers so 
limited that it crippled its effectiveness. 

First Moves for Statehood 

Statehood became of real interest to Alaskans in 1915 after 
they realized that they would never be able to do much with 
their homeland without it. 

The first forty-eight years of American ownership had brought 
more frustrations than anything else. What little government 
there was had been rendered ineffectively, by men not elected or 
responsible to the people they governed. 


First sentiment for statehood crystallized at Valdez, a city 
which was then a thriving political center in western Alaska. 
O. P. Hubbard, a territorial senator from Valdez, introduced a 
bill in the legislature memorializing Congress to grant state- 
hood. ... . 

Delegate James Wickersham introduced the first statehood bill 
in Congress on March 30, 1916. In his diary he noted that he 
selected that date because it was the forty-ninth anniversary of 
the signing of the treaty of purchase. The bill was referred to a 
committee and died. 

Tax Issue 

Delegate Wickersham had his hands full in a battle which 
involved protecting the powers of the little government Alaska 

The territorial legislature had levied a small tax on the 
salmon fisheries in Alaska. The packers, most of whom lived in 
the Pacific Northwest and the East, had turned to the courts and 
to Congress for protection from such a surprising turn of events. 
The packers had operated without any taxes up to then. 

In Congress, the Bureau of Fisheries, the Secretary of Com- 
merce and President Wilson favored legislation that would 
exempt the fisheries from territorial taxation. Delegate Wicker- 
sham succeeded in having the bill defeated only by convincing 
the Congressmen that the multimillion-dollar industry was ex- 
ploiting the resources of Alaska at the expense of the American 
taxpayers living in the states. 

The fish interests took their complaints to court and argued 
that the territorial legislature had no authority to tax either the 
fishing or mining industries. The courts, however, upheld the 
taxing powers of the territory. 

This was the first pitched battle between the fish interests and 
Alaskans. It is of historical interest because it continued many 
years after this incident. The fish packers had opposed every 
effort of Alaskans to establish a government They opposed the 
Organic Act of 1884, the delegate's seat in 1906 and the legis- 
lature in 1912. Indeed, it was the fish opposition that delayed 
the realization of those small steps toward self-government. . . . 

The tax problem proved an absorbing one for Alaskans, but 
the nation was fascinated by the statehood proposal in Delegate 


Wickersham's bill. Many newspapers gave it support. 

Opponents, however, came up with the arguments that were 
to be heard for the nevt forty-two years. They contended that 
Alaska was not read>, could not afford it, had insufficient re- 
sources and the population was too sparse and migratory. . . . 

The first sixty-six years of American ownership had wit- 
nessed the gigantic efforts and the small successes of Alaskans in 
getting the first semblance of government, and the first collisions 
with the fish packers. 

The first successes sharpened the awareness of Alaskans to the 
need for the traditional American form of self-government. The 
collisions with the packers served to identify their main enemy 
and drew battle lines that endured down to the final roll call 
on statehood in the United States Senate in 1958. 

Changes in the Thirties 

Changes came to Alaska under President Franklin D. Roose- 
velt in 1933 just as they did for the rest of the nation. 

He appointed Harold L. Ickes as Secretary of the Interior, a 
man who seemed to appreciate the czar-like powers over Alaskan 
affairs and enjoyed using them. 

Ickes jolted Alaskans out of the apathetic attitude that pre- 
vailed. He compelled them to widen their concern beyond their 
small business ventures and community problems. 

He proposed colonization schemes involving the introduction 
of large foreign populations into Alaska. He proposed making 
the Rat Islands in the Aleutian chain a penal colony. He for- 
bade the issuance of patents to homesteaders because he dis- 
approved of the separation of any more land from the public 
domain. In this action he proved himself more powerful than 
the United States Congress. His rule superseded and replaced the 
land laws enacted by Congress. 

Statehood Movement Revived 

Alaskans were . . . alarmed when he proposed a tax of 
8 per cent on the gross production of gold mines. They were 
convinced it would force many mines to be abandoned. The tax 
proposal brought Alaskans together in a new movement for 
statehood as a means of eliminating the rule of Ickes. 


In 1939, the Anchorage Pioneer Lodge by resolution asked the 
territorial legislature to name a committee to study statehood. 
The organization condemned Ickes as making "Alaska's venture 
in home rule a bitter and regrettable jest." 

The sentiments of the pioneers found ready acceptance by 
Alaska's governor, Dr. Ernest Gruening. Gruening had been 
appointed by the President over the objection of the Secretary of 
the Interior. 

The outbreak of World War II brought an upheaval in 
Alaska. The military "discovered" the strategic value of the 
territory. Roads, docks, airports and housing were built in crash 
programs. Military leaders pleaded with Congress to enact meas- 
ures assisting community growth because "we can't defend a 

The wartime prosperity gave the territory an economic lift 
that revived the lagging statehood movement. 

On April 2, 1943, Congress for the first time since 1916 
received the statehood bill. It was introduced by Senator Wil- 
liam Langer (Republican) of North Dakota on behalf of him- 
self and Senator Pat McCarran (Democrat) [of] Nevada. This 
was the start of a bipartisan effort that was to meet with success 
fifteen years later. 

Alaska's Delegate to Congress, Anthony J. Dimond, followed 
with a similar bill, introduced December 3, 1943. Both the 
Senate and House bills were referred to a committee and died, 
but the spark they kindled would not die. 

The new generation of Alaskans undertook studies of the 
duties, responsibilities and privileges that would come with 
statehood. When the Seventy-ninth Congress convened in 1944 
new statehood bills were introduced. Alaskans were optimistic 
because both political parties had included statehood for Alaska 
and Hawaii in their platforms. The war precluded progress, 
however. Four Federal departments War, Navy, Justice and 
Interior recommended against action for the duration. 

Postwar Action 

It was in 1945, after the war had ended, that the statehood 
movement got under way in earnest. Thousands of veterans came 
to Alaska to find homes. Sentiment in favor of statehood grew 


with the population. Opponents became scarce, and those who- 
were identified as opposed declined to appear publicly with their 
arguments. Senators Langer and McCarran reintroduced their 
bills. Representative Ervin [Democrat] of North Carolina put 
one in the House. The Alaska delegate always had one pending. 

In August 1945, Secretary Ickes surprised Alaskans by going, 
on record in favor. The territorial legislature memorialized Con- 
gress for favorable action and also provided for a referendum 
vote at which all Alaskans could express themselves. 

Advocates of statehood formed the Alaska Statehood Associ- 
ation for the purpose of sponsoring research and informational 
work which could be the base for an intelligent vote in the 
referendum. . . . 

The referendum resulted in a vote of 9,630 for, and 6,822 
against, statehood. This proved to be a great impetus for the- 
statehood movement. 

In 1947 the first Congressional hearings were held. Alaskans 
flew to Washington to testify, following which the committee, 
with Representative Fred L. Crawford [Republican] of Michigan 
as chairman, came to Alaska and heard 150 more Alaskans. The- 
committee reported favorably on the bill. 

The bill, however, died in the Rules Committee. The mem- 
bers did not allow it to go to the floor for debate. But death of 
the bill did not kill statehood. The 1949 territorial legislature 
created the Alaska Statehood Committee and appropriated $80,000 
for it to use in promoting statehood legislation, making studies 
of transitional problems and compiling information to aid dele- 
gates to a constitutional convention. 

Stepping up the Pace 

Creation of the committee took the initiative out of the hands 
of volunteers who, up to that point, had been carrying full re- 
sponsibility. Statehood became a part of the official territorial 
After the committee was created, an organized effort toward 
statehood was initiated. As a result, many national organizations 
such as lodges, civic groups, labor unions and others adopted 
resolutions in behalf of Alaska statehood. A national committee 
of prominent Americans for statehood was organized. 


The House committee held hearings again and reported the 
bill favorably in 1949. The movement gained more and more 
prestige and power. 

In 1950 a Gallup poll showed the public 81 per cent for, 8 
per cent against, and 11 per cent no opinion. The House voted 
186 to 146 to pass it, and another big victory for Alaska statehood 
was noted. 

The bill then moved to the Senate, and Alaskans chartered an 
airplane to take fifty-five witnesses to Washington. They were 
dismayed, upon arrival, to find certain members of the committee 
hostile. W. C. Arnold, managing director of the Alaska Salmon 
Industry, Inc., had made a private presentation of the packers' 
arguments at a luncheon the day before. He had given the sena- 
tors copies of his testimony, with charts and graphs, nicely bound 
in a leatherette cover. 

Undaunted, the Alaskans presented their testimony over a 
period of one week. They also listened to Arnold give his testi- 
mony formally, reading from the document he had already pre- 
sented to the senators privately. 

The senators held the matter under advisement for almost 
two months after the hearings and then reported favorably. The 
Alaskans had done what they had been told was impossible. 
The merits of statehood had outweighed the elaborate opposition 
presented by Arnold. 

During the two months' waiting period, the committee in- 
vented a new land formula for the proposed state of Alaska. 
Instead of granting lands from the public domain by chance of 
surveyed numbers, they provided for Alaska to select the land in 
large blocks regardless of survey. This was the origin of the 
generous land provisions that made the Alaska statehood bill 

Despite the favorable report and enthusiastic support by 
Chairman O'Mahoney of the Senate committee, the bill was not 
allowed to come to the floor of the Senate. It died with the 
Eighty-first Congress without further action. 

New bills went into the Eighty-second Congress immediately 
after it convened. The leadership decided that inasmuch as the 
House had acted favorably before, the first action should now 
come from the Senate. 


The Senate committee held executive sessions and approved 
the bill without delay. The bill carried the names of nineteen 
senators as authors. When it went to the floor for action, how- 
ever, a Republican-Southern Democratic coalition prevented en- 
actment. They recommitted it to the committee with a margin of 
one vote, 45 to 44. 

This action came at the end of eleven days of debate over a 
period of four weeks. The outcome was a setback, but the close- 
ness of the vote added to the prestige of the legislation. It was 
obvious then that the bill would pass if it could be brought to 
a vote again. But it required five more years to bring about that 

Another Fresh Start 

Alaskans started all over again with new legislation when the 
Eighty-third Congress convened in 1958. They were braced by 
the platforms of both political parties, an impressive legislative 
history and growing sentiments in favor. They were surrounded 
by strength, but their forces had one great weakness. Certain key 
men in the Interior Department were cool toward statehood or 
were known opponents. 

Despite this gap s statehood was a lively issue. Representative 
John P. Saylor (Republican) of Pennsylvania proved an effective 
new leader for statehood.- He pressed for action on Alaska while 
the Administration at that time sought action only on Hawaii. 

Further maneuvers appeared. The Democrats feared that 
Hawaii would be approved and Alaska left wanting statehood, so 
they combined the two bills. 

It was during these maneuvers that Senator Hugh Butler (Re- 
publican) of Nebraska, as Chairman of the Senate Interior Com- 
mittee, went to Alaska with the committee to hold more hear- 
ings. In previous sessions of Congress Senator Butler opposed 
statehood. In Alaska he indicated that he wished to hear testi- 
mony of "little people" who could not afford to go to Washington 
for hearings. 

Senator Butler and his committee held hearings in Ketchikan, 
Juneau, Fairbanks and Anchorage. While emphasizing that he 
had an open mind on the statehood question, he prefaced most 
of the sessions with statements that pointed to the possibility 


that statehood would mean higher taxes and other undesirable 

The "little people" testified in force. Out of 140 who ap- 
peared there were only 10 against statehood. 

Senator Butler was impressed with the dedication of Alaskans 
to statehood. In Anchorage he found that the citizens had or- 
ganized a "Little Man's Club" and had signs in store windows, 
on automobiles and buildings saying, Tm a Little Man Who 
Wants Statehood." Wherever Senator Butler looked he saw the 
message. He and his committee reported the bill favorably. 

This action brought a new device into the legislative picture. 
It was a suggestion that Alaska be made a commonwealth, like 
Puerto Rico, instead of a state. Senator Monroney [Democrat 
of Oklahoma] was the author of the idea. The suggestion was 
denounced immediately by Delegate Bartlett of Alaska and Dele- 
gate Farrington of Hawaii. It received virtually no public 

The commonwealth proposal was defeated 60 to 24 in the 
Senate. The combined statehood bill was passed 57 to 28 and 
went to the House, where it died without further action. 

Operation Statehood 

While the bill was pigeonholed in the House, the "Little 
Man's Club" in Anchorage was reorganized into "Operation 
Statehood" for the purpose of continuing work in behalf of state- 

The new organization literally flew into action in May 1954, 
when opponents of statehood proposed partitioning Alaska. . . . 
Alaskans refused to be divided. The Delegate to Congress and 
the Chairman of the Alaska Statehood Committee denounced the 
plan. "Operation Statehood" chartered a plane and flew Alaskans 
to Washington to oppose it. The partition plan died while some 
of the officials favoring it were still trying to find a likely place 
for a boundary. 

The Eighty-fourth Congress had eight statehood bills in the 
two houses. They won committee approvals readily but they 
made little headway. The only chamber action was in the House, 


where a combined Hawaii-Alaska bill was recommitted to com- 
mittee. After this unfavorable action the Senate decided not to 
waste any time on the subject. 

Constitution and Tennessee Plan 

Alaskans were not inclined to allow statehood to languish in 
Congress. They turned to the home front to build their case. 
In the winter of 1955-56 they held a constitutional convention on 
their own motion, without waiting for authorization from Con- 

Besides submitting the constitution for ratification, the con- 
vention also put before the voters a proposal that Alaska adopt 
the so-called "Tennessee Plan" for seeking statehood. This was 
its name for a program under which the territory would act like 
a state by electing two senators and a representative and send 
them to Washington to request Congress that they be seated. 
This approach had been successful when statehood was sought 
by Tennessee, Michigan, Oregon, California, Minnesota, Kansas 
and Ohio. 

The constitution was ratified by a vote better than two to 
one. The Tennessee Plan also carried, and three men were elect- 
ed as provisional senators and representative. 

Eleven statehood bills went before the Eighty-fifth Congress. 
They were approved by the committees promptly and were in 
line for floor action. The House Rules Committee once more 
stopped them. For ten months it failed to act. 

House Action, 1958 

Representative Clair Engle (Democrat) of California, Chair- 
man of the House Interior Committee, then invoked an old rule 
under which statehood legislation is privileged. He got a bill to 
the floor without action by the Rules Committee. 

During debate the opponents found they could not stop en- 
actment, but they could amend the bill. They provided for a 
referendum vote on three propositions before Alaska could be- 
come a state. These propositions required that Alaskans indicate 
that they (1) want immediate statehood, (2) accept the bound- 
aries of the territory as the boundaries of the state, and (3) accept 


conditions as to transfer of public lands to the state and power 
of the President to withdraw certain military lands in emergency. 

The bill was also amended to have the Federal Government 
retain control over the fisheries until the Secretary of the Interior 
certifies that the new state is ready and able to assume manage- 
ment responsibilities. This reduced the opposition of fish packers. 

The House passed the measure May 28, 1958, by vote of 208 
to 166. 

Victory in the Senate 

In the Senate the road to success was found sprinkled with 
hurdles, many of them formidable. Party concerns appeared. 
Republicans held that Democrats were pressing Alaska statehood 
and had no intention of acting on Hawaii. This made some 
Republicans reluctant to help enact the Alaska measure. 

Additionally, some Republicans expressed fear that there were 
"no Republicans" in Alaska. The three in the "Tennessee Plan" 
delegation were Democrats, as was the Delegate to Congress. 

The situation was complicated further by the fact that the 
Senate bill was, in the minds of its sponsors, better than the 
House bill. They preferred to act on their own measure. If they 
did, however, it was certain that no bill would result, as the two 
chambers would never agree in conference. The Rules Com- 
mittee would bottle it up again. 

Statehood supporters undertook a three-pronged challenge. 
It was that of (1) convincing the senators to forgo action on their 
own bill and consider the bill that had passed the House, (2) 
persuade the senators to accept the House bill without amend- 
ment so that no conference with the House would be necessary, 
and (3) allay the fears of Republicans that their party was non- 
existent in Alaska. 

The friends of statehood were persuasive enough to accom- 
plish all three phases of that program, largely because Secretary 
of the Interior Fred A. Seaton proved a devoted supporter and 
leader. The Secretary won strong support from all Administration 
quarters, and inspired the Republican side of the Senate to favor 
enactment of the bill. 

During six days of debate on the floor of the Senate, certain 
of the southern senators sought by various means to upset the 
legislation. But repeated attempts to amend it were voted down.. 


Five Alaska Republicans went to Washington to bolster the 
Democratic delegation. They called on every Republican, and in 
the final tally Republican senators for statehood outnumbered 
the Democrats. 

The final vote came on the evening of June 30. The vote was 
64 to 20, a landslide for statehood. The bill was signed by the 
President on July 7. 

Victory in Alaska 

Alaskans went to the polls August 26. They approved the 
three referendum propositions by five to one, and ran up the 
biggest vote in the history of Alaska. 

Even during the final days before the referendum, Alaskans 
found themselves pitted against fish packers still opposing state- 
hood. The Alaska Statehood Committee sponsored another infor- 
mational program for the voters, to put down rumors that were 
circulated in the hope of stirring up enough votes to defeat at 
least one proposition. 

Secretary Seaton accepted an invitation of the Alaska State- 
hood Committee to come to Alaska for the purpose of explaining 
that Federal functions and agencies would continue to operate 
after statehood, that Indians would not be confined to reserva- 
tions, and that they would not lose their lands and fishing rights. 

The final chapter was written by the Alaskans when they gave 
the five-to-one decision in favor of statehood. It was only natural 
that they should, because they had been working for it for forty- 
two years. 


On August 26, 1958, more than 48,800 Alaskan voters re- 
corded at the polls their overwhelming endorsement of statehood 
for Alaska. The ratio of "yes" to "no" votes over the entire 
territory was five to one, but even this figure does not indicate 
the strength of the popular support for statehood. An emphasiz- 
ing underline may be added to the quoted ratio by noting that 
20,000 more persons voted on the statehood question than had 

3 From "The Meaning of Statehood to Alaska," by Thomas B. Stewart, attorney, 
executive officer of the Alaska Statehood Committee and secretary of the Alaska Consti- 
tutional Convention. State Government. 31:215-19. Autumn 58. Reprinted by per- 


ever before voted in Alaska, the largest previous vote cast having 
been 28,903 ballots at the general election in 1956, And an indi- 
cation that the people of Alaska came to the polls especially to 
record their desire for statehood is revealed by the fact that 
nearly 3,000 more persons voted on the proposition as to whether 
statehood be granted than voted for United States senators, the 
contest drawing the next greatest number of votes. 

Self -Government the Key 

This fact of the tremendous popular majority for statehood, in 
a proportion not anticipated by even the most optimistic support- 
ers, points up the central and basic meaning of statehood to 
Alaska and for Alaskans: the achievement of full self-government, 
in its unique American form. This vote itself was a vigorous 
exercise of self-determination in government by the people of 

Some few spokesmen for statehood in the pre-election cam- 
paign dwelt expressly on the fundamental proposition that the 
question before the voters was whether to accept the full respon- 
sibility of self-government or to continue in territorial, colonial 
status without the rights of self-determination held by full- 
fledged American citizens, i.e., those residing "In the states 
proper" (in the territorial idiom). 

The debate on statehood just prior to this election focused 
principally on economic problems and on the general tax burden, 
and not so significantly on the more idealistic question of ob- 
taining democratic rights. But the response of the voters to the 
challenge of the statehood question, on the other hand, implied 
a widespread and perhaps deeply emotional feeling amongst 
Alaskans for the central idea: statehood means the right of self- 
government for the people of Alaska. 

Beyond this dominant proposition, the meaning of statehood 
principally assumes the character of possibilities. Having the 
right of self-determination, Alaskans now have the possibility of 
realizing many advantages and benefits not heretofore within 
their reach, as a practical matter. Whether the possibilities will 
become realities is to be determined largely by the wisdom and 
care with which the people of Alaska, and their leaders, exercise 
the newly gained rights of self-government. 


Earlier Restrictions 

There are some significant meanings of statehood of more 
certainty, however, and these include the immediate removal 
of positive restrictions on the powers of the territorial govern- 
ment imposed by the Organic Act of 1912, by the act of Con- 
gress which created the territory in its present form, and by other 
Federal laws. 

These restrictions are too numerous to list in detail, but they 
include such things as a prohibition against the territory or 
municipal corporations assuming any bonded indebtedness. This 
barrier has been modified during the years prior to statehood in 
various ways, but it still has operated to prevent adequate capital 
improvements and a sound program of public financing. A most 
drastic prohibition has been that of preventing the territory from 
entering the field of regulation of its fish and wildlife resources 
a restriction which has given rise to some of the most bitter, 
local feelings with regard to Federal administration in Alaska. 
This particular restriction on the governmental power has been 
temporarily retained in Public Law 85-508, Eighty-fifth Con- 
gress, the act providing for admission of the state of Alaska into 
the Union. 

Perhaps the most significant restriction has been that pre- 
venting the election of the governor by the people of Alaska. 
The consequence of having a federally appointed governor, not 
responsible to the will of the electorate of the territory, has been 
a long history of bitter conflict in past decades between the legis- 
lature and the governor. In some instances, the governor has 
simply not given regard to the popular will in circumstances in 
which an elected governor would need to do so, at the almost 
certain price of loss of office should he not respond. This situa- 
tion has given rise to a distrust of the chief executive by the 
legislature which has produced much bad legislation in the terri- 
tory in terms of decentralization in the executive organization 
and consequent lack of coordination in executive programs. 

Strong Executive Becomes Possible 

The removal of the restrictions of Federal law on Alaskan 
governmental power suggests the area in which there are perhaps 
the greatest possibilities for advantages to Alaska from statehood. 


This is the matter of organization of the executive branch of the 
Alaskan government. 

The general outline of its organization is already provided in 
the constitution for the state of Alaska, adopted by its framers 
on February 6, 1956, and ratified by the people of Alaska in an 
election held on April 24, 1956. The constitution has been ac- 
cepted, ratified, and confirmed by Congress as being republican 
in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the United 
States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It 
provides for a strong executive, with powers to appoint the major 
department heads who will serve at his pleasure. It provides for 
a limited number of major departments of the executive branch, 
and otherwise expresses a policy of simplicity and clear lines of 
authority and responsibility. . . . 

Thus a most important meaning of statehood to Alaska is 
the possibility of creating a workable and responsible executive 
branch. The constitution already adopted not only will permit 
this but encourages it. . . 

Legislative Apportionment 

Statehood means for Alaska an opportunity to make the 
legislative branch continuously representative of the population 
and its distribution to a degree seldom achieved by any state. 
The territorial legislature in recent years has been particularly 
unrepresentative, in the sense that most of its members came pri- 
marily from a few of the largest communities, although numer- 
ous smaller communities had sufficient population to warrant 
representation in the legislature on a proportionate basis. While 
it recently became theoretically possible for the legislature to 
redistrict for purposes of legislative elections, this was not done. 

A sure consequence of statehood is an immediate redistricting 
along logical lines, providing for maximum representation of 
people and a constitutional scheme for reapportionment carefully 
designed to insure its operation despite legislative inertia on re- 

It is noteworthy that the constitutional convention which de- 
termined upon the 'scheme of apportionment adopted by the peo- 
ple was itself composed of delegates whose election was based 
upon a special districting for the purposes of the election to the 


convention. This scheme of districting for the convention, which 
unquestionably produced a group of delegates far more widely 
representative than had ever assembled in the territorial legisla- 
ture, was an instance of self-government. It indicates the quality 
of governmental action that arises from the promise of statehood. 

A Better Court System 

Statehood means that for the first time there will be a court 
system designed and operated by the people of Alaska rather 
than for them by absent powers. Perhaps one of the most sig- 
nificant facets of this change is that the judges will be selected 
by Alaskans and, as provided by the state constitution, under 
the pattern of the American Bar Association plan for the selection 
of judges. 

There is another and equally significant facet of Alaska's 
finally having its own judicial system. Heretofore, appeal from 
decisions of the district courts in Alaska has been through the 
Federal system to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit at 
San Francisco, and thence to the United States Supreme Court. 
This process of appeal has been prohibitively expensive for liti- 
gants. Consequently it has meant many decisions by the district 
courts without appellate review. There has also been little 
opportunity to review the validity of Alaskan laws and to inter- 
pret their meaning, which was needed to put flesh on the statu- 
tory skeletons. Statehood offers an opportunity to give the ju- 
dicial system its proper place in the scheme of government. 

Power at the Federal Level 

A vitally important part of the meaning of statehood to 
Alaska is the opportunity to exercise political power at the Fed- 
eral level. The history of Alaska as a territory is filled with frus- 
trations of the elected delegates to Congress who have sat in the 
House of Representatives without the right to vote. This has 
meant almost no representation at all on critical issues where 
the practical processes of legislation required political power to 
accomplish governmental action for the constituency. 

The lack of power in the voteless delegate to Congress evi- 
denced itself in many ways. Often the Alaskan delegate's oppor- 


tunity to be heard before a committee, for example, was lost in 
the press of time when voting members of Congress were given 
priority in hearing. The delegate from Alaska, of course, sat 
only in the lower house, and his opportunity to obtain action by 
the Senate was severely restricted since he had no privilege in 
that body. 

Under statehood Alaska will have two senators and a repre- 
sentative in Congress. In an area as undeveloped as Alaska, 
and with so much of its surface in the category of Federal land, 
there are unlimited opportunities for enhancing development by 
Federal action. It is only with statehood that Alaska is in a 
position properly and adequately to urge necessary Federal action. 
The obtaining of a voice in Congress is a key feature of statehood 
that can affect Alaska's growth and development. 

Transport and Natural Resources 

Two of the most critical problems facing Alaska today are 
the development of an adequate transportation and communica- 
tion system and the control and development of natural resources. 
Statehood holds the opportunity to reach sound answers in these 

Alaska today is economically a high-cost region, toward which 
venture capital for development therefore is not readily attracted. 
At the root of the problem of high costs is Alaska's remoteness 
from the manufacturing centers of the United States and the high 
cost of transporting goods from them. Under territorial status 
Alaska has suffered certain discriminations which have tended to 
restrict competition in transportation and otherwise to produce 
extremely high freight rates. 

Statehood means that some of these restrictions will auto- 
matically be removed, and the possibility will exist for new com- 
petition, especially in ocean freight. 

Under statehood Alaska will become eligible for Federal as- 
sistance in road building in a manner that heretofore has been 
denied it. By careful planning of the development of road and 
air facilities the new state has an opportunity to make available 
for economic use and development resources presently not used 
because of the difficulties of transportation. 


Perhaps the greatest opportunity offered by statehood Is that 
of planning for and, with accepted conservation standards, en- 
couraging the use of Alaska's natural resources. At present the 
largest single industry is the taking and canning of fish, especially 
the various species of the Pacific salmon. A potentially large 
industry, just now awakening, is in the timber products field, in- 
cluding lumber and pulp. Mining remains one of the most im- 
portant industries, although its future is uncertain in the face of 
existing depressed prices on the national and international levels. 
The prospect of extensive oil reserves is promising. There are 
known sites in Alaska for development of tremendous quantities 
of inexpensive hydroelectric power, and this offers great challenge 
for possible industrial development the potential being avail- 
able in many cases in the near vicinity of deep-water and ice- 
free ports that may accommodate ocean shipping. Not the least 
of the new state's economic advantages is its magnificent scenic 
beauty; the possibilities for development of tourism present an 
immediate opportunity. Finally, Alaska's vast land area is one 
of its major resources. Making land available for use and occu- 
pation to settlers offers a prime opportunity for governmental 
action looking toward the healthy, economic growth of the 
state. . . . 

Alaska and the World 

The strategic position of Alaska, located as it is athwart the 
growing polar transportation routes by air and sea, places it in 
a particularly sensitive international status. The significance of 
statehood reaches out, militarily and otherwise, into international 
affairs, with possibly wide consequences for the international 
position of the United States. 

Alaska's statehood has every possibility of contributing to the 
best defensive system for the United States. With statehood 
there will now be added, for the Federal determinations on such 
matters as military appropriations, the voices of Alaska's two 
senators and its congressman. It is important to America to have 
a strong Alaska as its northernmost bastion. And Alaska is much 
more likely to be strong when occupied by people with roots in 
the land, supported by good transportation facilities, with a well- 
developed industry and agriculture, and a sense of being full 
participants in the destiny of all the United States. 


Not the least of the consequences of statehood for the inter- 
national position of the United States is the tangible evidence it 
provides that America practices the democracy it preaches. The 
granting of statehood is an obvious demonstration of America's 
belief in self-determination, self-government, and the superiority 
of democratic processes. The situation of the entire free^ world 
argues for an extension of the principle of union; in joining 
Alaska to the forty-eight states, America asserts a leadership in 
the development and spread of that principle. As a demonstra- 
tion of faith in democracy the significance of Alaska's admission 
cannot be missed by the nations of the world. That it has had 
this value is evidenced by the weak attempt of the Russian gov- 
ernment to minimize its importance, labeling it an effort by the 
United States to extend a military threat toward Russia. It is 
very clear that no such motives lay behind the decision of Con- 
gress to extend statehood. On the contrary, the passage of the 
bill was the culmination of long, hard efforts by Alaska and its 
many friends in Congress, the national Government and private 
life to achieve full rights of self-government for the people of 

The meaning of statehood for Alaska will become fully known 
only when its people have exercised these new rights of self- 


Alaska is about one fifth the size of the continental United 
States. The distance from Ketchikan in southeastern Alaska to 
the westernmost Aleutian Island is greater than from New York 
to San Francisco. The distance from Ketchikan to Point Barrow 
is about the same as from Seattle to the Mexican border. Yet this 
large area 586,000 square miles is thinly settled although its 
young population is growing rapidly. 

For July 1957 the Bureau of the Census estimated the civilian 
population of Alaska at 165,000, an increase of 56,000 (52.0 per 
cent) over the 1950 figure of 108,000. Nevada's gain in civilian 
population for the 1950-1957 period was 63.8 per cent. In the 
period between the 1940 and 1950 censuses, Alaska's gain of 77.4 

4 From "The 49th State/* Social Legislation Information Service Bulletin. 82:540-7. 
N. 25, "58. Reprinted by permission. 


per cent in total population was larger than any state's. Cal- 
ifornia was nearest with 53.3 per cent for this period. 

While Alaska's population increased 77 per cent between 1940 
and 1950, the population of the continental United States in- 
creased 14 per cent. The population of Alaska is still growing 
much faster than any state except Nevada. About two thirds of 
this growth is accounted for by natural increase excess of births 
over deaths and about one third to net immigration. About 
one quarter of the population is nonwhite. 

Much of the population increase has taken place around An- 
chorage, the largest city in the state, whose total population is 
now 32,000. Fairbanks, the second city in size, has approximately 
16,000 people. Juneau, the state capital, and Ketchikan in the 
southeast both have less than 10,000 inhabitants. About three 
people live in the country to every city dweller in Alaska. The 
"stateside" ratio is roughly two urban dwellers to one rural resi- 
dent. Alaska has a population density of about 1 person per 
4 square miles, as compared with 57 persons per square mile in 
the continental United States. Nevada, with two persons per 
square mile, has heretofore held the record for population 

The birth rate in Alaska (number of births per 1,000 popula- 
tion per year) stands at 35, ten points higher than the United 
States average and a rate close to those of several Latin American 
countries. The high Alaskan birth rate reflects the youthfulness 
of the population and the high proportion of married women. 
The median age of the Alaskan population is only 26, five years 
below that of the United States. In 1950, 42 per cent of Alaska's 
population was in the prime reproductive ages of 20 to 40, as 
compared with only 32 per cent in the United States as a whole. 

The forty-ninth state of the Union has by far the largest 
proportion of males of any state and the highest proportion of 
married women. There are 16 males to every 10 females in 
Alaska. Nearly three fourths of all women there are married. 
In the continental United States, women slightly exceed men in 
numbers, and only two thirds of the women are married. 

The extremely youthful age structure of the population also 
accounts for Alaska's phenomenally low death rate of 5.8. This 
is almost four points below the 9.6 death rate of the continental 


United States. But if birth and death rates were adjusted for 
the age differences, the marked differences in birth and death 
rates between Alaska and the continental United States would be 
greatly reduced. . . . 

Tuberculosis is probably the most serious health problem 
among the 34,000 Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts who are known as 
"Alaska natives." In 1957 the known case rate was 1649.7 per 
100,000 in the native population. The number of cases among 
the Indian population in the United States in the same year was 
426.9 and 51.4 cases among the general population. Although 
mortality from tuberculosis remains high among Alaska natives, 
it has dropped from a rate of 630 per 100,000 population in 1951 
to 89.2 in 1956. 

Programs: Special Federal Aid 

The Federal Government now owns 99.5 per cent of the land 
in Alaska. The land north of the Yukon River and west of its 
porcupine tributary plus much of the Alaska Peninsula in the 
southwest will remain subject to exclusive Federal jurisdiction 
whenever the President deems this necessary for national defense. 
This "withdrawal area" is about half of Alaska, containing 15,000 
Indians, Aleuts and Eskimos and 5,000 employees of the Defense 

Under the Alaska Statehood Act, over the next twenty-five 
years, the new state may select up to 103,350,000 acres of land, of 
which 400,000 acres may be within the withdrawal area. Alaska 
may sell or lease its land "dowry," except that land within the 
withdrawal area may be used only for recreational purposes and 
community expansion and may not be sold. Although the Fed- 
eral Government will retain some 70 per cent of the land in 
Alaska, the new state is receiving more land than has been grant- 
ed any other state joining the Union. . . . 

The Government is turning over to the new state the Federal 
building in Juneau, as well as the Governor's Mansion. Of 
great benefit also will be continuance, for at least several years, 
of special Federal aid for welfare, health and education in 

Until 1900 all Alaskan public schools were operated by the 
Federal Government. Since then the territorial public school 


system, which accounts for about half the territorial budget, has 
grown to total 125 schools, of four types: 

28 schools in organized districts supported by local funds and 
directed by local school boards. Elementary enrollment, 
20,000 (about 20 per cent native); secondary enrollment, 
4,700 (about 18 per cent native). 

68 schools outside incorporated districts are supported and 
operated by Alaska's Department of Education. Elementary 
enrollment, 3,100 (about 48 per cent native); secondary en- 
rollment, 250 (about 35 per cent native) . 
21 former Federal schools now operated by Alaska's Depart- 
ment of Education, although the Federal Government still 
owns and finances them. Enrollment is about 650, entirely 
elementary and virtually all native. 

8 schools on military bases, operated by Alaska's Department 
of Education but supported by Federal funds. 
There are also some 20 or 25 private and denominational 
schools in Alaska, most of which are elementary. Their enroll- 
ment totals 1,600 (about half native) . 

The Department of the Interior operates 86 schools in Alaska. 
Two on the Pribilof Islands of St. George and St. Paul are the 
responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Depart- 
ment, while the others are managed by its Bureau of Indian Af- 
fairs. Most have only one or two teachers; three fourths have 
enrollments between 15 and 55. In southeast Alaska the Bureau 
maintains two boarding schools: Wrangell Institute, an elemen- 
tary school with an enrollment of 250; and Mount Edgecumbe, a 
secondary school with an enrollment of 740. Only native chil- 
dren may attend. . . . 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Interior Department pro- 
vides general assistance to Alaskan natives who are not eligible 
for categorical public assistance under the Social Security Act. 
The BIA also provides child welfare services to native children 
who are not eligible for Territorial services and social casework 
services for families with serious problems. . . . [In 1958] BIA 
allocated $960,000 for its Alaskan welfare program. 

The Federal Government provides health and medical serv- 
ices for Alaska natives on essentially the same basis that these 
services are rendered to Indians who live on reservations within 


the continental United States. Until July 1955, health services 
for Alaska natives were provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
of the Department of the Interior, but since then the Indian 
health program has been the responsibility of the Public Health 
Service of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 
In general, all services to the natives are designed to reach natives 
who live in unincorporated villages and rural areas. Those liv- 
ing in larger towns depend for services upon the same territorial 
agencies that serve the entire population. 

The eight PHS hospitals in Alaska have a combined total of 
more than 1,000 beds, of which about 650 are for tuberculosis 
patients. However, there are not enough beds to meet the needs 
of the unusually high number of tuberculosis patients and some 
general patients in remote communities. To serve these people, 
the Public Health Service contracts with community hospitals 
and sanatoria for about 25 general beds and for more than 100 
beds for tuberculosis patients, as well as for about 300 beds in 
three sanatoria in the state of Washington. Native tuberculosis 
patients are transported by air to the hospitals in Washington. 

For a number of years the Bureau of Indian Affairs had con- 
tracted with the Alaska Department of Health for public health 
nursing services to the native population. This contractual ar- 
rangement has been continued and expanded since the transfer 
of the program to the PHS. The current contract provides for 
public health nursing services, medical care, tuberculosis control 
and sanitation and health education services to the Alaska native 
population. Under this contract, native sanitarian aides are being 
trained and employed in the Alaska native health programs. 

The PHS program also includes itinerant nursing services to 
natives in 113 remote villages. The Service operates a nationally 
accredited practical nurse training school at Mount Edgecumbe, 
in which about forty Alaska native girls are in training annually. 
Graduates of this school are employed in the hospitals and other 
Alaskan health facilities of the PHS. 

Three Federal grant programs in the health field apply only 
to Alaska. The former territory has been appropriated $638,000 
annually to supplement territorial, local and other funds re- 
ceived by the Alaskan Department of Health. ... [In 1957 and 
again in 1958], Congress also made a special $1 million grant 
to help the territory meet the cost of treatment and care of the 


mentally ill. In July 1956, Congress provided for the progressive 
transfer over a decade ending June 30, 1967 of responsibility 
for the mentally ill in Alaska from the Federal Government to 
the territory. Appropriation of $6.5 million was then authorized 
for construction of suitable facilities in Alaska, where none now 
exist, patients being hospitalized in Oregon. . . . 

The Public Health Service program currently [1958] in- 
cludes $527,000 for direct operations in Alaska. The territory 
has been aided through loan of personnel, procurement of sup- 
plies and provision of other services necessary for control of 
venereal diseases, tuberculosis and sanitation and other general 
health problems. At Anchorage, the PHS also operates its Arctic 
Health Research Center, which studies environmental sanitation, 
epidemiology, entomology, animal-borne diseases transmissible 
to man, biochemistry, nutrition and physiology. 

Grants: Special Treatment for Alaska 

In ... [many] programs of Federal aid to the states, no dis- 
tinction is made between the former Territory of Alaska and the 
states. . . . 

In other Federal grant programs, however, Alaska is presently 
accorded treatment differing from that received by the forty eight 
states. For the most part, the current laws give Alaska less fav- 
orable treatment. The Library Services Act sets the Federal share 
of Alaska's rural libraries at two thirds of the annual costs, al- 
though in the states the Federal share varies from two thirds to 
one third, depending upon state per capita income. 

On the other hand, the section of the Smith-Hughes Voca- 
tional Education Act providing grants for teacher training does 
not include Alaska. Under the National Defense Education Act 
of 1958, financial assistance to Alaska for instruction in science, 
mathematics and modern foreign languages will be determined 
by the Commissioner of Education, as is also true of the Act's 
provisions for guidance, counseling and testing. Special pro- 
visions of other laws affecting Alaska are: 

The 1958 amendments to the Social Security Act . . . specified 
for Alaska the Federal share of four matching grant programs in 
which the former territory participates. Starting with the 1960 
fiscal year which begins July 1, 1959 the Federal share of state 


child welfare programs will depend on state per capita income, 
varying from one third to two thirds of the total. The Federal 
share in Alaska, though, was fixed at half the cost of the program. 

In the public assistance programs of Old-Age Assistance, Aid 
to Dependent Children and Aid to the Blind, the Federal grants 
are in two parts. The Federal share is $15 of the first $18 paid 
monthly to adult recipients and $14 of the first $17 received 
monthly by dependent children. With respect to this portion of 
the OAA, ADC and AB grants, Alaska is treated as other states. 

The Federal share of additional payments made under these 
programs depends upon state per capita income and varies from 
50 to 65 per cent. The Federal share of the cost of Alaska's OAA, 
AB and ADC programs is fixed at 50 per cent, without regard to 
per capita income in the forty-ninth state. 

Alaska is treated like the states under most public health pro- 
grams. Exceptions are the Federal grants for water pollution con- 
trol and construction of (Hill-Burton) medical facilities. In these 
two programs, the Federal share of project costs depends upon 
state per capita income and may vary from one third to two 
thirds of the total. In Alaska the Federal contribution does not 
depend on per capita income and is fixed at half the cost of 

Alaska is also treated differently in one portion of the Federal- 
state vocational rehabilitation program the grant-in-aid for 
support of services. Under the law, available funds are allotted 
among the states on the basis of a formula involving per capita 
income, with allotments ranging from one third to three fourths. 
The allotment percentage for Alaska is fixed by law at three 
fourths. The matching provisions of this law call for the Federal 
contribution to vary from 50 to 70 per cent, depending upon state 
per capita income. In Alaska the Federal share is fixed by law 
at 60 per cent. 

The only distinction made between Alaska and the states 
under the Housing and Home Finance Agency's authority to pro- 
vide defense housing and community services and facilities is 
with respect to maximum cost per family dwelling unit. At the 
discretion of the HHFA, the cost in Alaska may be 50 per cent 
higher than the maximum allowed in the forty eight states. 
Similarly, in the low rent public housing program, Alaska is 
permitted $500 additional over the maximum cost of $2,000 per 


room in the continental United States. Congress authorized es- 
tablishment of the Alaska Housing Authority, which may borrow 
up to $20 million from HHFA. Up to $1 million of this sum 
may be used to make character loans to individuals and co- 
operatives. . . . 

Under a law passed in 1949, donations of surplus Federal 
property may be made to the states only for purposes of educa- 
tion, public health, civil defense or for research in these fields, 
and all such donations are subject to certain restrictions and con- 
trols by the donor agencies. In 1954 this law was amended, how- 
ever, to authorize donation of surplus movable Federal property 
to the territorial government of Alaska without regard to other 
requirements of the law, providing only that the territorial gov- 
ernor indicates, before the end of 1959, that the property is 

Prospects: Continued Federal Generosity? 

. . . [The] Department of the Interior, with the concurrence of 
the Attorney General, has circulated a legal opinion to encourage 
uniform interpretation of the Alaska Statehood Act by the vari- 
ous Federal departments and agencies. 

The legal memorandum recalls that Section 8(d) of the Act, 
provides that "All of the laws of the United States shall have 
the same force and effect within said state (Alaska) as elsewhere 
within the United States." The memorandum then categorizes 
"the laws of the United States" as follows: 

1. Those generally applicable but not applying to Alaska, 

2. Those equally applicable to the United States and Alaska 

3. Those which accord territories or possessions, including 
Alaska, more or less favorable treatment than the several 

In the opinion of the Interior Department's attorneys, laws 
of the first two types continue or will be extended to apply to 
the new state of Alaska. With respect to the third category of 
laws, they believe it would be "clearly inconsistent with state- 
hood to apply to Alaska provisions expressly applicable only to 
territories and possessions." This reasoning would seem to dic- 
tate the end of the special provisions regarding Alaska that have 
been described above. 


However, the Interior Department's legal memorandum re- 
gards as an exception to the third category laws "which prescribe 
distinctive treatment for Alaska attributable to some factor other 
than the territorial status of Alaska. ... The distinction may 
have been made, for example, because of area, population, cli- 
mate, terrain, or any of a number of other factors. We think it 
entirely compatible with statehood that those distinctions be pre- 
served until such time as the Congress manifests an intention to 
the contrary. 


[One of the mysteries of the Pacific is] where ... the native 
Hawaiian . . . [came] from, and how ... [he got] to Hawaii. 
This much is obvious: the ancient Polynesian was a daring and 
venturesome navigator. He had to be, when you consider the 
distances he traveled over uncharted seas, in small craft, to get 
to Hawaii. 

Many theories have been advanced through the years to ac- 
count for the arrival of these intrepid voyagers to the Islands. 
Most authorities agree that they first came to Hawaii about one 
thousand years ago. Their origin is obscure but it is generally be- 
lieved that they were Polynesians who came up from Tahiti, 
two thousand miles away. 

The Polynesians are said to be the descendants of a tribe of 
Caucasian people who left their homeland in India. They 
roamed through Malaya to the island groups of the Pacific. 
Along the route they intermarried with Malayans and people of 
the Orient. From the people of the southwestern Pacific islands 
they acquired their darker complexion, so that by the time they 
reached Tahiti, now considered the ancient homeland of the 
Polynesian, they were a light brown people. 

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, new groups of 
Tahitian Polynesians rediscovered Hawaii. They came in large 
double canoes, laden with families, food, plants, and animals, 
and they settled down. The era of long voyages ended. Hawaii 
remained isolated from the world for ... several centuries. 

8 From A Pocket Guide to Hawaii, pamphlet prepared by the Office of Armed Forces 
Information and Education. (DOD Pam 2-1) Department of Defense. Washington 25, 
D.C. "55. p 15-27. 



Arrival of Captain Cook 

Captain James Cook, the great English sea captain and ex- 
plorer, was on his third voyage of exploration in the Pacific when 
he first sighted the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. His two armed 
vessels, the Resolution and the Discovery, anchored in Waimea 
Bay, Kauai, on 20 January and Cook, accompanied by twelve 
marines in three armed boats, went ashore. The natives im- 
mediately prostrated themselves before the explorer, believing 
him to be an incarnation of their god, Lono, returning in 
fulfillment of an old prophecy. 

Cook left the Islands, promising to return. He did so a year 
later. On 17 January 1779, he anchored his vessels in Kealakekua 
Bay, Island of Hawaii. ... 

Here again the Englishman was treated as a god and given 
presents. All went well for ten days and then pilikia (trouble) 
set in. It started with the realization that Cook and his com- 
panions were not gods but mortals, as were the natives them- 
selves. Quarrels in trade occurred, and thefts. The natives 
became angry when a fence around a temple was cut up for fuel 
by the visitors. Then a large boat belonging to the Discovery was 
stolen by natives who broke it up to obtain iron. Cook deter- 
mined to take the Island king aboard the Discovery and hold 
him until the stolen craft was restored. A fight resulted, and 
Captain Cook and seventeen natives were killed. 

Kamehameha the Great 

Cook, as he explored each of the inhabited islands, found 
them ruled as independent kingdoms by hereditary chiefs called 
alii nui. The emergence of a Big Island chieftain, Kamehameha, 
changed all that. Kamehameha first consolidated the Island of 
Hawaii by a series of great battles. In one of them, he is said to 
have had the aid of Pele, the Hawaiian goddess of the volcano. 
A battle was in the making between Kamehameha and Keoua. 
En route from Hilo to the Kau district, the forces of Keoua 
moved along the active crater of Kilauea. The first group got 
through safely. As the second group passed, there was an 
explosive eruption and every warrior in it was killed. 

In 1795 Kamehameha decided the time had come for conquest 
of all the Hawaiian Islands. He mustered a large and well- 


equipped army and sailed for Maui. Meeting little resistance 
there, he destroyed the village of Lahaina and laid waste to the 
western portion of the island. 

His forces then took possession of the island of Molokai and 
sailed on to Oahu. After a few days of preparation his army 
marched up Nuuanu valley where Kalanikupule, the king of 
Oahu, stood with his forces. The Oahu warriors fought bravely 
but were driven up the valley and hundreds of them perished 
when they were pushed back over the pali (cliff) at the head of 
the valley. It is an event celebrated in ancient and modern 
Hawaii songs. The Nuuanu pali today is one of the world's 
greatest scenic masterpieces. . . . 

Kamehameha I will always remain a hero to his Hawaiian 
people. It was he who consolidated the Islands under a rule 
strong enough to withstand a century of foreign jockeying for 
favored position in these strategic Islands. He and his descend- 
ants were to rule the Islands for one hundred years until just 
before Hawaii became a territory of the United States. 

Vancouver Arrives 

About this time foreign vessels began to visit the Islands, 
principally on trading or exploration missions. In 1791 one of 
them anchored off Kauai to collect sandalwood, establishing a 
long and profitable sandalwood trade with China. An important 
foreign visitor was Captain George Vancouver, British naval 
explorer, who made three visits beginning in 1792. He brought 
to Hawaii the first bulls and cows ever seen there, and presents 
of orange trees, grapevines, and other useful plants. Vaucouver 
also gave Kamehameha much valuable advice on the manage- 
ment of his monarchy, the training of his troops, and how to 
deal with foreigners. 

In 1820 an event of considerable importance occurred. The 
first missionaries arrived after a long voyage around the Horn 
from New England. They found a fertile field for Christianity. 
The American missionaries gained success when they aligned 
themselves with the chiefs to combat the distillation of hard 
liquor, a breakdown in morals, and the spread of infectious 


Russia Tries to Move In 

The Islands prospered tinder the Kamehameha kings. Foreign 
trade developed steadily, as did internal commerce, agriculture, 
and industry. Sugar and coffee were becoming established crops. 

With Japan closed to foreigners, Hawaii became the center 
for the whaling industry in the Pacific. Foreign vessels, men-of- 
war and cargo ships put into Honolulu harbor in increasing 

In 1814 the Bering, a Russian trading vessel, was wrecked on 
the coast of KauaL Much of the cargo was salvaged by natives. 
In 1815 the Russians sent an agent to Hawaii presumably to 
recover the lost cargo but actually to establish a Russian post. 

A year later the agent was reinforced by the arrival of two 
more Russian ships. He landed his men in Honolulu and began 
building a fort there. Kamehameha ordered them sent away. 
The Russians went instead to the island of Kauai where, aided 
by natives, they began building a new fortress. When news of 
this reached the king on Oahu, he ordered the Kauai governor 
to expel the Russians at once. This was done after some fighting, 
and the foreigners were deported to California. Thus ended the 
dream of Russian conquest in the Hawaiian Islands and the first 
known attempt at foreign interference with the affairs of the 
Pacific Kingdom. 

The United States and Hawaii 

A quarter of a century passed, and in 1842 the United States 
formally recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii. 

Queen Liliuokalani was a handsome and a brilliant woman. 
She reigned for not quite two years, beginning in January 1891, 
and was in trouble right from the start. Her reign, although 
brief, is important. Her dethronement led in succession to the 
establishment of a provisional government, a Hawaiian republic, 
and, eventually, to annexation by the United States. 

Early in her regime the queen clashed with her ministers 
when she attempted to abolish, by means of a new constitution, 
some of the restrictions placed upon the monarch. When the 
ministers refused to sign the document, the queen withdrew it. 

In the meantime a Committee of Safety had been appointed 
by leading citizens who had gathered to discuss the situation. 


Members of this Committee took steps almost at once to form a 
provisional government and to reorganize a voluntary military 
company previously disbanded. 

A mass meeting on 16 January 1893 ratified the action of 
Committee members. That evening the U.S.S. Boston landed a 
force of armed men for the protection of American interests. 

The provisional government was organized on 17 January. 
That afternoon it took possession of the government building 
and issued a proclamation declaring the monarchial government 
to be abolished. 

On 19 January five commissioners were named to proceed to 
Washington with full authority to negotiate a treaty of annexa- 
tion to the United States. Such a treaty was drafted and sent to 
the United States Senate for approval only to be withdrawn by 
President Cleveland, who wanted time to investigate the Hawai- 
ian situation. 

When their hopes of early annexation to the United States 
faded, the Hawaiians took another step. A constitutional con- 
vention was summoned to draft a constitution for the Republic 
of Hawaii. The work was completed on 4 July 1894, and the 
next day the Republic of Hawaii was proclaimed with Sanford 
B. Dole as president. 

Negotiations for the annexation of the new Republic to the 
United States were resumed soon after the election of President 
William McKinley. On 6 July 1898, the Senate and the House 
of Representatives adopted a joint resolution to this effect. It was 
signed by President McKinley the next day. 

United States Flag Flies over Hawaii 

The news of the signing of the treaty reached Honolulu on 
13 July amid great rejoicing. The transfer of sovereignty was 
formally completed on 12 August when the flag of the United 
States was raised over the executive building. 

In April 1900 Congress passed the Hawaii Organic Act, 
establishing the territorial form of government and providing 
that the Constitution and laws of the United States have the 
same force in Hawaii as in the continental states. Sanford Dole, 
president of the Republic, was appointed the first governor of the 
Territory of Hawaii, taking office on 19 June 1900. Thus Hawaii 


came into the Union proudly and voluntarily, preferring the 
American democratic way of life to the many other forms of 
government she experienced and was offered. 


Marine helicopters buzzed overhead, church bells rang, and 
little children raced barefoot along country roads, shouting* 
"Statehood! Statehood it's come!" Approved by Congress in 
1959, statehood arrived 106 years after pro-American King 
Kamehameha III first began discussions with the United States 
Government about the annexation of Hawaii to the Union as a 
new state. After the King died, negotiations lapsed, although the 
idea of statehood was never entirely abandoned. In his inaugural 
address as the first governor of the Territory of Hawaii, Sanford 
B. Dole prophesied eventual statehood, and in 1903, the territorial 
legislature petitioned Congress for an enabling act which would 
lead to statehood. The first bill calling for statehood was sub- 
mitted in Congress sixteen years later by Jonah Kuhio. Dozens 
of congressional investigations, reports, and recommendations 
were produced in the years that followed, but Hawaiian state- 
hood, a symbol of the right and ability of the peoples of the 
Islands to govern themselves, was always blocked. 

Hawaii remained under the constitutional control of Con- 
gress, which could, at any time, abolish the territorial legislature 
and local government and place the Islands under a resident 
commissioner, as was done in the Philippines, or under a Navy 
commission, as had been done in Guam and Samoa. Hawaii 
had been threatened with the loss of self-government before. The 
President and Congress flirted with the idea of commission gov- 
ernment ... in the early 1930 s s. During World War II, Hawaii 
became the first sizable territory in American history to be 
governed by the military. Throughout its history, the citizens of 
Hawaii had been unable to vote for President or for their own 
governor. With only one nonvoting delegate to represent them 
in Congress, the territory did not get its share of Federal money 
for roads, conservation, improvement of rivers and harbors, or 

9 From Hawaii Pono: A Social History, by Lawrence H. Fuchs, professor of politics 
and dean of faculty at Brandeis University. Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. New York. 
"61. p 406-17. 1961, by Lawrence H. Fuchs. Reprinted by permission of Harcourt, 
Brace & World, Inc. 


land-grant colleges and vocational education. Hawaii, Congress 
said in repeated sessions following 1935, was not ready for 

Delegates Jonah Kuhio and Victor Houston, after serving in 
Congress, believed that Hawaii could not achieve optimum 
economic and social benefits from participation in the American 
Union unless the territory was transformed into a state. Houston 
had warned the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association as early as 
May 1929 that the only sure way to prevent discrimination 
against the Islands 5 sugar industry was to obtain statehood. 
Unless Hawaii carried more weight in Congress, the two major 
props of the industry the high protective American tariff and 
the steady supply of cheap labor from the Philippines might be 
destroyed. Congress could lump Hawaii with the Philippines as 
an offshore area and place the Islands outside the American 
tariff, or, responding to Hawaii's insistence on equal treatment 
short of statehood, might exclude Filipino labor from the Islands 
as they had from the mainland. 

Opposition to Statehood 

But not all of the citizens of Hawaii wanted statehood. Until 
1935, the overwhelming majority of the kamaaina [born in 
Hawaii or long resident there] oligarchy of the Islands were 
steadfastly opposed. The trustees of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' 
Association answered Houston by arguing that immediate state- 
hood would be "premature and unwise," and were delighted 
when congressional sponsors of Filipino exclusion bills included 
an exemption for Hawaii. The plantations, over 60 per cent of 
whose laborers were Filipinos, could continue to draw their field 
workers from the giant archipelago in the western Pacific, and 
the tariff walls seemed as sturdy as ever. When Houston com- 
plained to Henry A. Baldwin [a sugar plantation owner and 
political leader] that as delegate he had to beg for benefits for 
Hawaii and that there was constant discrimination against the 
territory, Baldwin replied that he understood Houston's feeling 
like a "book agent going around asking for kokua [help]." But 
territorial status was preferable to statehood, he advised, since 
the voters of the Island were not mature enough to elect a 
safe-and-sane governor. "The bolsheviks and booze fighters seem 


to get the big vote, at least on Oahu, and Oahu would^ come 
pretty near controlling T. H. elections," predicted the missionary 
descendant There was even a risk, suggested Baldwin, that 
Hawaii would elect a Japanese governor and a strongly Japanese 
state legislature. Another missionary descendant, Clarence H. 
Cooke, opposed statehood in a letter to a high-school debating 
team by asserting that "through appointment of officers by the 
President of the United States, such as the governor, secretary of 
the territory and judges, we have always had a better class of 
men in these positions than states enjoyed through their elective 
systems." Until 1934, the other owners and managers of Hawaii's 
sugar agencies and their subsidiaries agreed with Baldwin and 
Cooke. [For a discussion of the "oligarchy" of Hawaii, see 
"Hawaii's Economy: Prospects and Problems," in Section IV, 

But following the Jones-Costigan Act of 1934, a fundamental 
reversal occurred in the attitude of many of Hawaii's leading 
kamaaina citizens toward the issue of statehood. The Act classi- 
fied Hawaii, not as an integral part of the United States, but as 
a nondomestic producer of sugar, along with the Philippines and 
Puerto Rico. The practical effect was to increase the amount of 
sugar that might be marketed by Colorado, Michigan, and other 
states by as much as 18 per cent, while the Hawaiian quota was 
cut by 10 per cent. Despite protests from the Hawaiian Sugar 
Planters' Association, Federal courts supported the right of Con- 
gress to discriminate against any territory in setting sugar quotas. 
Association lobbyists failed to produce a change in congressional 
will, and suddenly the men who owned and controlled the great 
agencies saw the wisdom of Houston's argument for statehood. 

Sugar Joins Fight 

The sugar industry backed Delegate Samuel Wilder King 
when he introduced a statehood bill to the House of Representa- 
tives in May 1935, and supported the Hawaii Equal Rights 
Commission, created by the territorial legislature in the same 
year. The Commission was charged with working to assure 
Hawaiian equality with the states in Federal legislation and to 
Study the advisability of submitting the issue of statehood to a 
plebiscite. The first act of the Commission was to authorize 
Governor J. B. Poindexter, its ex officio chairman, to appear 


before the congressional delegation then in the territory to study 
the question of statehood. 

This was the first of twenty congressional hearings on state- 
hood held between 1935 and 1958, hearings that saw more than 
1,000 witnesses and that resulted in the passage of Hawaiian 
statehood bills by the House of Representatives in 1947, 1950, 
and 1953, as well as passage of a Senate bill to admit both 
Hawaii and Alaska in 1951. By 1940, the prostatehood forces in 
the territory had persuaded the territorial legislature to authorize 
a plebiscite on the question. The sugar interests, recognizing that 
Hawaii's position in the domestic market was in constant 
jeopardy, strongly supported statehood. Joseph Farrington's Hon- 
olulu Star Bulletin, the Nippu Jiji, and the Hawaii Hochi 
endorsed the plebiscite in editorials and news columns. The 
Honolulu Advertiser opposed immediate statehood, mainly on 
the ground that Americans of Japanese ancestry who held dual 
citizenship were not yet trustworthy as Americans. 

The magazine Fortune helped prostatehood forces when it 
published an Elmo Roper poll in January 1940 which showed 
that only 55 per cent of the mainlanders questioned believed the 
United States should go to the rescue of Hawaii if the Islands 
were attacked, while 74 per cent favored the defense of Canada. 
The Advertiser considered the poll irrelevant, insisting that 
Hawaii should not become a state until its citizens were Amer- 
icanized. It pointed to the 37,000 alien-born Japanese in Hawaii 
who could not become citizens, the 174 Japanese-language schools 
attended by more than 40,000 young nisei, and the potential 
dangers of Japanese-language broadcasts. Disturbed by the Ad- 
vertiser's hard-hitting attacks, the Star Bulletin published an 
article by University of Hawaii sociologist Romanzo Adams 
entitled "Getting the Facts Straight About Statehood A Myth 
About Japanese Dominance." Although no group was more 
interested in the outcome of the plebiscite than the Japanese, 
most of their leaders refrained from taking a stand to avoid lend- 
ing credence to the Advertiser's allegations. In the plebiscite, two 
of every three voters affirmed their support of statehood, with the 
largest pluralities coming from the outer islands. On Oahu, 
especially in the haole [white] districts, statehood was more 
controversial, since it was in such areas that fear of the "Japanese 
menace" had had the greatest influence. 


Post-War Efforts 

After the war, statehood efforts were vigorously renewed. In 
1944, the Hawaiian Equal Rights Commission recommended that 
its name be changed to the Hawaii Statehood Commission, a 
proposal adopted by the territorial legislature in January 1947. 
Later that year, the United States House of Representatives for 
the first time passed a bill providing for Hawaiian statehood, 
but the Senate defeated a move to remove the statehood bill from 
its Interior and Insular Affairs Committee in the following 
session. The citizens of Hawaii watched as statehood bills were 
buried in one house or the other, and during the 1950's, they 
increasingly doubted that statehood would ever be approved by 
Congress. Statehood commissioners for Hawaii collaborated with 
Delegate Jack Burns in organizing testimony for congressional 
investigators. Proponents of statehood repeatedly argued that 
Hawaii should not pay Federal taxes without voting privileges, 
that Hawaii paid more Federal taxes than nine other states, that 
the Islands had a larger population than any other territory at 
the time of admission to the Union except Oklahoma, and that 
the per-capita income of its citizens was higher than that of 
thirty-five states. The peoples of Hawaii, they pleaded, were 
literate and patriotic, ready to assume the obligations of first-class 

Suddenly, in 1958, the statehood strategy of Delegate Burns 
diverged from that of certain statehood commissioners and 
Governor William Quinn in Honolulu. Following passage of the 
Alaskan statehood bill by the House of Representatives, Burns 
agreed with proponents of Alaskan statehood and Democratic 
leaders in the Senate that it would probably destroy the chances 
of statehood for either territory if Hawaii and Alaska were joined 
in the same bill. Burns agreed that it would be wise for Hawaii 
to wait its turn, even if it meant postponement of consideration 
of the Hawaiian bill until a new Congress met in 1959. Lorrin 
P. Thurston, chairman of the Hawaii Statehood Commission and 
publisher of the now ardently prostatehood Advertiser, did not 
agree that Hawaii's bill should be held up until the following 
year. Commissioner O. P. Scares said that it was "naive" to 
believe that Hawai would be better prepared in the next session 


"if Alaska goes through this time." Governor Quinn called for 
an immediate push and wondered why the Hawaii bill should 
be held up for Alaska. 

Alaska-First Plan 

It became increasingly clear that Burns not only acquiesced 
in, but was one of the chief strategists of the plan to separate the 
two bills and push Alaska first. The theory was simple. Some 
congressmen opposed Hawaii, others were antagonistic toward 
Alaska. Why combine these minority oppositions to defeat an 
over-all bill? Also, Burns maintained, the momentum to accept 
Hawaii would be irreversible once Alaska achieved statehood. 
Not only would additional pro-Hawaiian statehood congressmen 
sit in both chambers, but it would be difficult to discriminate 
against Hawaii as the only remaining incorporated United States 
territory. Opponents of the Burns strategy in Hawaii did not 
agree that the alternatives were a combined bill or Alaksa first 
and Hawaii second. Thurston pointed out that as long as 
Delegate Burns was committed to helping Alaska while keeping 
Hawaii off the House floor, the Hawaiian bill was doomed for 
1958. Soares argued that Hawaii's willingness to follow Alaska 
provided statehood opponents with the argument that "we're 
going soft on statehood and don't really care any longer." When 
it was reported that Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson 
and Democratic Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, both from 
Texas, were working closely with Burns's two-step strategy, 
Republicans in Hawaii complained in the Star Bulletin, "It is 
increasingly clear that in a showdown, Hawaii will never get 
statehood while southern Democrats control key positions of 
leadership in Congress. 

Burns disagreed strongly. The Hawaii statehood bill was dead 
for 1958, but he had received private assurances from Johnson 
that it would receive early consideration in the Senate in 1959. 
Speaker Rayburn was not committed to support statehood, but he 
agreed not to stand in its way against the majority sentiment in 
his own chamber. To fortify that sentiment, Burns invited 
Representative Leo W. O'Brien, Democrat of New York and 
chairman of a special subcommittee of the House Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs, to visit Hawaii in late November. 
Strongly sympathetic to Hawaii's statehood request, O'Brien 


brought two like-minded members of the subcommittee with 
him to make what the committee called "an intensive inquiry" 
on the statehood issue. 

In January, the three committee members submitted their 
report, signaling the opening thrust in the last congressional 
battle for statehood. The report systematically rebutted the major 
antistatehood arguments of the bill's two principal antagonists 
in Congress, Senator James Eastland, Democrat of Mississippi, 
and Representative John Pillion, Republican of New York. 

Pillion's main argument was that the influence of the Inter- 
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union in Island 
politics and the extent of Communist control in the union were 
too great to admit Hawaii to statehood. We would be inviting 
"four Soviet agents to take seats in our Congress/' charged the 
New York representative. Eastland agreed. When informed on 
the Senate floor that the FBI could identify only twenty-five 
known Communists in the Islands, Eastland maintained that 
"they control the economic life of the Islands." A second, but 
less important, argument advanced by opponents of statehood 
was that Hawaii's Oriental population would never be fully 
assimilated into American life. South Carolina Democratic 
Senator Strom Thurmond, while emphasizing that persons of 
Japanese ancestry were as moral in their way as any other group, 
added that they could not adapt to American political institu- 
tions. Friends of statehood in the Senate and House pointed out 
privately that Senators Eastland and Thurmond may have been 
less concerned about Communist influence in Hawaii or the 
cultural separatism of the Japanese than they were about the 
addition of two pro-civil-rights senators to the upper chamber. 
A persuasive friend of statehood from Louisiana, businessman 
George Lehleitner, stated that southern opposition, as measured 
in votes, was even stronger against Alaska than Hawaii. . . . 
Congressmen were genuinely concerned, insisted Lehleitner, when 
men of such stature and influence as former Governor Lawrence 
Judd and industrialist Walter Dillingham lent their support to 
the charge that Hawaii was dominated by the Communist 
leadership of the ILWU. 

Another former governor, Ingram M. Stainback, also opposed 
statehood, insisting that a commonwealth arrangement compara- 
ble to that existing for Puerto Rico would be more advantageous 


for Hawaii than admission as a state. The main advantage of 
commonwealth status, Stainback pointed out, would be exemp- 
tion from Federal taxation. A handful of citizens who agreed 
with Stainback formed the Commonwealth party, but all of its 
candidates were beaten badly in the 1958 election. Common- 
wealth did not ring a bell with the peoples of Hawaii, and 
economic and fiscal experts, while agreeing that Island taxes were 
high, pointed to a 1954-55 study which showed that, after 
taxation, the average citizen of Hawaii had $4 to every $1 left for 
the Puerto Rican citizen, indicating the ability of the Islands to 
support statehood economically. 

Opinion of Islanders 

A comprehensive private public-opinion survey on all the 
Islands in 1958 revealed that 23 per cent of the haoles [whites] 
and 27 per cent of the Hawaiians polled strongly opposed state- 
hood. Congressional opponents of statehood would have rejoiced 
had they known of these results. Only 43 per cent of the sample 
favored immediate statehood; 24 per cent showed some degree 
of opposition, and the remainder were apathetic. Of the largest 
ethnic groups in the Islands, only the Japanese revealed a clear 
majority backing immediate statehood. Favoring immediate 
statehood were 62 per cent of the citizens of Japanese ancestry, 
44 per cent of the Chinese, 39 per cent of the Filipinos, 33 per 
cent of the haoles, and only 30 per cent of the Hawaiians and 
part-Hawaii ans. An intensive 1959 survey of the fourteenth 
representative district on Oahu showed that respondents who had 
previously replied that they were "neither for nor against state- 
hood" or that they were "opposed but would go along with it," 
would probably vote in favor of statehood in a referendum that 
put the issue squarely, yes or no. Still, 37 per cent of the 
Portuguese, 34 per cent of the haoles, and 32 per cent of the 
Hawaiians interviewed in the fourteenth district refused to 
endorse statehood. 

Antistatehood sentiment in the Islands correlated frequently 
with hostility toward Japanese. . . . When the voters of the 
fourteenth representative district on Oahu were asked in early 
1959 if they felt that any racial group or groups in the Islands 
had too much power, 60 per cent of the Hawaiians and 56 per 


cent of the Portuguese in the sample replied yes. Of those who 
answered affirmatively, nearly nine out of ten Hawaiians and 
Chinese, eight of ten Filipinos and haoles, and nearly seven of 
every ten respondents of Portuguese extraction specified the 

The survey revealed that tensions between the Hawaiians and 
Portuguese on one hand and the Japanese on the other were 
recognized explicitly by members of the first two groups. Latent 
hostilities between haoles and Japanese were also uncovered, 
although haoles were much less open than the Portuguese [gen- 
erally not considered haoles] and Hawaiians about their feelings. 
Filipino resentments toward the Japanese persisted, as was shown 
by intensive individual interviews. 

Overwhelming Endorsement 

Despite opposition to Hawaiian statehood, the strategy of 
Delegate Jack Burns was validated in the second session of the 
Eighty-fifth Congress when both houses voted overwhelmingly to 
admit Hawaii to statehood. All that remained was for the voters 
of the territory to endorse the statehood bill in the June 1959 
primary election. Every major group in the Islands, from the 
newspapers to the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association to the 
ILWU, urged statehood. Not a single important political figure 
publicly disagreed. Statehood was no longer an academic ques- 
tion. The Congress of the United States had endorsed it. The 
voters on every major island in the territory, despite the complex 
ethnic tensions intertwined with the statehood issue, over- 
whelmingly voted yes. The final count was seventeen to one, 
with prostatehood victories in every representative district, and 
significant antistatehood sentiment expressed only in small Por- 
tuguese and Hawaiian precincts. The only one of the Islands* 
240 precincts to reject statehood was tiny Niihau, all of whose 
107 registered voters were Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian. On that 
little island, invariably overwhelmingly Republican, Hawaiians, 
still trying to recapture the past, registered their protest to the 
final act in the absorption of Hawaii into the American Union. 
There, the seven out of nine voters who said no to statehood 
probably would have said yes to a restoration of the monarchy. 


But to the majority of Hawaii's citizens, justice in the Islands had 
finally heen done. 

Justice what did it mean? For years, Hawaii's leaders had 
complained that it was unjust for Islanders to be excluded from 
first-class citizenship. Now, the peoples of Hawaii would be on 
an equal legal footing with their fellow citizens on the mainland. 
But justice within Hawaii was another issue. Statehood symbol- 
ized, but did not create, the vast changes that were taking place 
in the Islands* economic, political, and social systems, making it 
a "just" society. 

There are tests of a just society: Is decision-making widely 
shared? Are goods and services widely distributed? Is creative 
talent rewarded without discrimination between sexes or among 
races and religions? To these questions, Hawaii could answer 
with qualifications in the affirmative, and could confidently 
prophesy a stronger, less-qualified yes for the future. 

Was decision-making widely shared in the year of statehood 
in Hawaii? Within the past decade, the political system had 
been transformed from one-party domination to vigorous com- 
petition between two well-organized parties; the control of 
Hawaii's wealth had been widely dispersed; strong labor unions 
had been established, and competition among labor unions was 

Politics to the Fore 

Poststatehood politics in Hawaii featured dozens of able 
politicians from all races actively seeking to serve the new state 
government. The proportion of college-educated and profession- 
ally trained candidates for state office in 1960 was probably 
higher than for any other state in the Union. The variety of 
racial backgrounds of these candidates was incomparable. The 
Democrats, especially rich in talent, found it difficult to agree on 
a slate of state candidates before the June primary election. 
Daniel K. Inouye and others close to Jack Burns persuaded the 
Delegate to run for governor rather than for one of the seats in 
the United States Senate, although Burns, assured of a Senate 
victory, agreed reluctantly. The new governor, under Hawaii's 
constitution, would be exceedingly powerful and would have 
hundreds of appointments to make. Against the popular Burns, 
whose statehood strategy had been vindicated, the Republicans 


could nominate only one man the extremely popular appointed 
Governor, William F. Quinn. For lieutenant governor, Demo- 
cratic primary voters chose territorial Senator Mitsuyuki Kido 
over Spark M. Matsunaga; for representative, Inouye defeated 
Patsy Takemoto Mink; former Governor Oren E. Long and 
perennial mayoralty candidate Frank F. Fasi were nominated for 
election to the United States Senate. Republican strategists pri- 
vately doubted that anyone could beat Inouye, but, hoping to 
win at least one Senate seat, they pitted Wilfred Tsukiyama 
against Long and former territorial Representative Hiram Fong, 
now a successful businessman, against Fasi. The big contest, of 
course, would be for the governorship. To help Quinn win 
among voters of Hawaiian extraction, the Big Island's county 
chairman and popular campaigner, James Kealoha, was matched 
against Kido. 

The Republican Oahu county chairman, Benjamin Dilling- 
ham, worked tirelessly to regroup GOP forces against the 
favored Democratic slate. He repeatedly criticized Burns as a 
captive of the ILWU and charged that his election would aid 
the cause of the Soviet Union and the Peiping government of 
China. But Quinn, rather than Dillingham, sounded the major 
theme in the Republican campaign. Running on a liberal 
Republican platform, which he had helped to write, he spoke 
of eliminating taxes on basic foods, increasing net personal- 
income-tax exemptions, extending unemployment-compensation 
benefits, and distributing public lands on a fee-simple basis at 
rock-bottom prices to citizens of Hawaii. The last idea, intro- 
duced in the closing weeks of the campaign, captured the interest 
of hundreds of voters. Quinn called it the "second mahele" 
[land reform] after the Great Mahele of the nineteenth century, 
perhaps without realizing that the mid-nineteenth-century reform 
was viewed by Hawaiian voters as a fraud against their people. 
Nevertheless, Quinn and his scheme for land reform represented 
the desire of a growing number of Republican politicians to 
identify with the hopes and needs of the voters of various ethnic 
strains and to avoid positions and symbols that would associate 
them with the Republican party of the past. Among the new 
liberals was territorial Representative Frank Judd from Oahu's 
seventeenth district. Judd, whose famous great-grandfather had 
arrived in the Islands in 1828, bore a name that, as much as any 


in the Islands, was identified with the past. But he emphasized 
the need for the Republicans to establish a liberal record, to 
become the party of the people. Another missionary descendant, 
Ballard Atherton, president of the Hawaiian Telephone Company 
and former chairman of the City Charter Commission, was not a 
candidate for office, but he encouraged fellow Republicans to 
adopt a positive approach on the land question and to become 
sensitive to the special demands of Hawaii's ethnic groups. 
Hebden Porteus, popular senator from Oahu's fourth district, also 
decried what he called "110 per cent Republicans who wanted to 
talk only about the devaluation of the dollar and high taxes/ 9 
Porteus, an Alexander & Baldwin [one of the "Big Five" sugar 
factors and business corporations] lawyer, helped write the liberal 
Republican platform planks on land and taxes, and encouraged 
large estates to open up more land to home owners. On Maui, 
plantation executive John E. Milligan joined the liberal 
Republican faction. 

Election Results 

When the votes were counted, these Republican liberals, 
including Quinn, were victorious, proving that the revolution of 
1954 had far from destroyed the Republican party in Hawaii. 
There had never been so close an election in Hawaii's history. 
Individual Republicans, among them victorious Quinn, Kealoha, 
and Fong, showed amazing strength in Democratic districts. In 
addition to the governorship, lieutenant governorship, and one 
United States Senate seat, the Republicans also recaptured control 
of the territorial now the state Senate. The Democrats won a 
majority in the new state House of Representatives, Long defeated 
Tsukiyama, and Inouye won a magnificent landslide victory, to 
become the first American of Japanese ancestry named to the 
United States House of Representatives. 

Although there is a serious question as to whether the ends of 
democracy are well served when power is so sharply split between 
the two political parties that it is difficult for the leaders of either 
party to be held responsible to the electorate, there could be no 
doubt that political power in the Islands was now fluid, that 
opportunities for advancement in politics were open to talent 
through two keenly competitive political parties. 



Hawaii comes into the American Union with the experience 
of more than a century of self-government. Since the adoption 
of a constitution by King Kamehameha III in 1840, followed in 
1848 by a division of the land which removed the physical basis 
for the earlier feudal system, Hawaii has been ruled under 
constitutional lawas kingdom, republic, and organized territory. 
Long before its annexation to the United States in 1898, it had 
adopted the Anglo-American common law and governmental 
practices familiar to Americans, which culminated in the deposi- 
tion of the monarchy in 1893, As a sovereign republic and as a 
territory of the United States, it has financed and (except during 
a period of martial law during World War II) has ruled itself 
with a minimum of assistance and direction from the Federal 

The coming of statehood, then, will not basically change the 
structure or fabric of government in Hawaii. Unlike Alaska, her 
sister novitiate, Hawaii will not suddenly face the necessity of 
assuming governmental burdens for example in public health, 
highways, education which had previously been borne in whole 
or in part by the national Government. On statehood day, no 
new function will have to be assumed by the government of the 
new state. The schools, the highway program, the administration 
of justice, the revenue structure, health and welfare services and, 
without important exception, all the rest of the governmental 
program, will continue to operate as on the preceding day, and 
for the most part under the direction of the same people. 

Acting in a community accustomed to self-government, leg- 
islatures and governors have kept Hawaii well abreast of govern- 
mental practices elsewhere in the nation. It would be easy to 
compile a long list of statutes in the fields of public health, 
-education, agriculture, labor, and taxation in which Hawaii has 
pioneered or has been in the van of American jurisdictions. It 
has not looked for leadership to the Interior Department or other 
agencies in Washington. 

T From article by Robert M. Kamins, professor of economics. University of Hawaii. 
State Government. 32:156-61. Summer '59. Reprinted by permission. 


Impact on Local Government 

Changes there will be, of course. The first change is being 
experienced as this is written, months in advance of statehood. 
Persons aged 20 are registering for the first state elections, sched- 
uled for June 27 and July 28, as permitted by the state con- 
stitution, under the provisions of which the elections will be 
conducted. (Alaska set the minimum voting age at 19; Georgia 
and Kentucky have set the minimum at 18; all other states 
at 21.) . . . 

Popular election may be expected to strengthen the office 
of the governor, particularly since a "short-ballot" constitution 
gives the governor authority to appoint all department heads 
as well as members of the state judiciary. Even though Hawaii 
has a well-developed civil service system, patronage opportuni- 
ties for the executive will be abundant. A by-product will be 
the injection of additional zest to political action in Hawaii, 
already vigorous with strong Democratic and Republican parties. 

If, as appears likely, the office of governor will lie at the 
center of heightened political activity in this new state, the 
election of two national senators and one or two congressmen, 
cannot but add to the enlivenment of partisan competition. 
Coincidental ly, the adoption in 1959 of a charter for the city- 
county of Honolulu, which enlarges the membership of the 
municipal council while strengthening the position of the mayor, 
probably will further invigorate the striving at the polls. . . . 

Under rather remarkable constitutional relationships with 
the Federal Government, one department of the Hawaii govern- 
ment is protected against change by the state legislature. The 
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, a Federal statute, 
established the Hawaiian Homes Commission, a territorial agency 
designed to assist Polynesian Hawaiians in maintaining their 
communities and creating new ones. Relatively large areas 
of public land have been made available by the commission 
to persons of Hawaiian ancestry (of at least half blood, in 
recent years) as residential sites and agricultural homesteads. 
Hawaiians receiving land grants are given ninety-nine-year 
leases, for which they pay an annual rent of $1.00. Holders 
may also receive low-interest loans from the commission. 


The state constitution adopts the Hawaiian Homes Com- 
mission Act on behalf of the state, agreeing that "the spirit 
of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act looking to the continu- 
ance of the Hawaiian homes project for the further rehabilita- 
tion of the Hawaiian race shall be faithfully carried out." 
Furthermore, Congress, in the act of admission, permits the 
amendment (in the constitution or by statute) of administra- 
tive provisions of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act but 
prohibits the new state from changing the provisions relating to 
the commission's funds, to change the qualifications to hold 
land under the act, or to decrease the benefits of Hawaiian 
landholders, unless permitted by Congress. This last tie to the 
Federal apron strings Congress would not cut. 

Search of the Laws 

Attainment of statehood makes it necessary to study the 
statutes under which Hawaii has been governed. In Washing- 
ton, the Budget Bureau is examining the Federal statutes ap- 
plicable to Hawaii, to determine if statehood will change their 
applicability. (By way of example, in Hawaii as a territory, 
business transacted has been ipso facto considered to be in 
interstate commerce for the purpose of some Federal laws. In 
Hawaii as a state, presumably the same legal tests that are 
used elsewhere in the United States will determine what is inter- 
state commerce and what is not.) Under an executive order, 
the Budget Bureau is to report its findings to the President. 

In Honolulu, meantime the legislature has authorized the 
Hawaii attorney general to consider the effect of statehood 
on the laws under which the state is ruled, both those enacted 
by Congress and those of the Hawaii legislature. 

The study is given urgency by a provision in the Admission 
Act which repeals within two years of the date of statehood 
all territorial laws enacted by Congress. This refers to laws 
"the validity of which is dependent solely upon the authority 
of the Congress to provide for the government of Hawaii 9 * as 
a territory. . . . 

Putting the state constitution into effect changes the ad- 
ministration of the laws as well as their form and content. 
Hawaii the territory has had a three-member Supreme Court, 


appointed by the President. Under the constitution this ap- 
pellate court is expanded to five, appointed by the governor, 
and it is to be served by an administrative director. The estab- 
lishment of the latter position, accomplished by the last terri- 
torial legislature in anticipation of statehood, was recommended 
in a 1957 survey of Hawaii's judiciary as being of primary im- 
portance to improve the administration of justice. . . . 

Effects in Washington 

More profound effects of statehood may stem from Hawaii's 
gaining votes, as well as a voice, in Congress than from changes 
in the local government of the Islands. The sugar industry, 
still the largest grouping of private enterprises despite the postwar 
diversification of Hawaii's economy, has always been concerned 
about its marketing quota under the sugar acts while Hawaii 
remained a territory. Now that it is a state with as many 
Senate votes as any other, Hawaii's quota seems more secure. 
If production on the shrinking acreage utilized by cane planta- 
tions should increase over a million tons Hawaii's approximate 
annual allotment on the national market perhaps the quota 
can be enlarged for the state of Hawaii. Producers of other 
local agricultural crops, notably coffee, which has recently 
suffered from depressed world prices, are now beginning to ask 
if the new senators and representative cannot obtain coverage 
for their crops under the farm price support programs. 

Statehood also promises to insure the stability of another 
source of mainland dollars, the largest defense expenditures. 
Hawaii's economic development in recent years may be viewed 
as a race against possible disarmament or movement of mili- 
tary establishments out of Hawaii. If the Islands are to be 
demilitarized ultimately (and from their position in the Pacific 
the people of Hawaii are at least as concerned as any other 
portion of America's population with the dangers of continued 
international tensions) , two senators and a representative may be 
able to cushion the economic shock by obtaining federally fi- 
nanced public works in larger quantity than Hawaii the territory 
could have expected. 

Hawaii is land-hungry, and statehood may cause the re- 
lease by military agencies of substantial acreages held since 


World War H, currently put by the United States to infre- 
quent or marginal use. Under the Admission Act, each Federal 
agency having control over any property in Hawaii is required 
within five years of the date of statehood to report to the 
President concerning its continued need for each parcel. If 
the President determines that any land is no longer needed by 
the United States, the act provides that it shall be returned 
to Hawaii. 

By such transfers, Hawaii would regain at least a portion 
of the public lands which were ceded to the United States in 
1898 at the time of annexation. Hawaii's government hopes 
that the areas returned will be substantial, particularly on the 
island of Oahu, where a rapidly increasing population is press- 
ing hard against limited amounts of readily usable land. The 
land so transferred to the state government will become, under 
the Admission Act, a public trust for the support of the public 
schools, for the betterment of native Hawaiians, for development 
of farm and home ownership, and for similar purposes. 

Furthermore, the Admission Act applies to Hawaii the Sub- 
merged Lands and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Acts of 1953. 
Hawaii has no offshore deposits of oil, the resource which 
supplied much of the motivation for passing these Federal laws. 
But it does have shallow tidal lands which can be filled in, 
now that their control is firmly vested in the state, to supply 
needed space for an expanding population and tourist trade. 
With some difficulty, Hawaii obtained congressional permission 
last year to fill and use a limited area extending from the shores 
of Waikiki. Now the littoral of any of the Islands can be 
expanded as the need arises and resources permit. 

Economic Stimulus 

Obtaining the use of more land, particularly on densely 
populated Oahu, constitutes the most obvious stimulation of eco- 
nomic growth under statehood. Other influences are less tan- 
gible but also important. 

The greatest of these is the familiarity which Hawaii will 
gain for investors and merchants, for tourists and American 
migrants, as a state of the Union. During the past several 
decades an increasing part of the mainland population acquired 


some knowledge of Hawaii and its institutions, but a surprisingly 
large number of mainland Americans still wondered about the 
language, the money and the tariff system of the territory of 
Hawaii. It is already apparent that the state of Hawaii is 
more familiar, and therefore inspires greater confidence as a 
place for investment or business enterprise. Without much 
doubt, the current flurry of economic expansion the construc- 
tion of Hawaii's first oil refinery, first steel mills, first cement 
plants, additional small manufactures, new hotels, shopping 
centers and residential areas, the commercial exploration of 
bauxite (the state's only known mineral resource), will be 
accelerated and sustained by business attracted to Hawaii by 
the spotlight of statehood. 

Accelerated movement of persons to Hawaii from other parts 
of the United States is also to be expected movement to a 
"paradise" which statehood has brought closer, in the popular 
image, to accustomed American ways. Such an influx, when 
added to the established population growth of the Islands, will 
place still greater pressure on the intensively utilized land area 
of Oahu, forcing an expansion of economic growth in the other 
seven principal islands of the chain. All of the latter are now 
relatively underdeveloped, with static or declining populations. 
The expansion will require the establishment of cheap inter- 
island travel, now limited to plane and barge traffic, the supply- 
ing of water to arid lands, a shift of dairy and truck fanning 
from Oahu to its neighboring islands, the growth of villages 
into towns and towns into cities, the expansion of commercial 
and governmental services in all areas in a word, the over-all 
enlargement of virtually every phase of Hawaiian activity. 

Social Aspects 

Those who have found pleasure in living here cannot but 
view with mixed feelings the prospect of a more crowded Hawaii. 
There is reason to believe that the changes associated with 
economic expansion will be gradual, but their cumulative ef- 
fects will be profound. 

A minority in Hawaii who have opposed statehood have 
feared some of these effects. Many persons of Hawaiian an- 
cestry, justifiably proud of their Polynesian antecedents (and 


sometimes idealizing the golden days before Captain Cook, 
before the missionaries, before the revolution which toppled 
the monarchy, or before the tide of migration from the main- 
land pulled in by World War II) have forebodings that they 
and their culture will be lost in the new Hawaii, pushed aside 
by a more aggressive commercialism. Were this to happen, 
and it does not yet seem imminent,, statehood would not be 
the cause but rather the symbol of a social evolution of al- 
most two hundred years. What may rather result is a Hawaii 
which moves closer to mainland living patterns, yet retains in its 
amalgam much of the graciousness and individuality of the 
Hawaiian people. 

Older Caucasian settlers, of families established in Hawaii 
for a century or more, may also wonder if their predominance 
in business, politics and society will be further reduced by state- 
hood. Since World War II, and particularly in the past decade, 
newer settlers from the Orient have begun to assume leader- 
ship in the community. However, members of these very families, 
not unanimously but in strength, have supported the long drive 
for statehood along with the rest of the population. . . . 

Effects on the United States 

Incompletely told, these are some of the effects which state- 
hood will have on Hawaii, and some of the local reactions to 
the changes. There will also be important effects upon the 
United States as a whole. 

Quantitatively, it might be thought that Hawaii is too small, 
measured against the rest of the country, to have much bearing 
on the nation's life. The new state comprises only about three 
tenths of one per cent of the population of the United States, 
and two tenths of one per cent of its area. Yet, there is good 
reason to believe that this small region will soon play an im- 
portant part in the rounding out of America and in its inter- 
national relations. 

To date, because it was initially settled by migrants from 
Europe and Africa, the mainland United States has had little 
knowledge of Asia and its peoples, little ability to communicate 
with them or to understand firsthand their problems, fears 
and desires. The admission of Hawaii to statehood demon- 


strates to the nations of the Orient that the racial attitudes of 
the United States are not what its traducers have said. Statehood 
also creates in Hawaii a pool of first-class Americans of Oriental 
ancestry, some of whom (though deplorably few) are able to 
speak one or more of the languages of the East, who can be 
called upon to represent the United States in discussions with 
Asian countries. 

The preamble to the state constitution manifests some of 
the attributes of the people of Hawaii which especially qualify 
them to serve the United States in the conduct of international 

We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guid- 
ance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a 
government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with 
an understanding heart toward all the peoples of the earth, do hereby 
ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii. 


America, in accepting Hawaii as the fiftieth state, is much 
like a man who finds himself married to a picture bride. He 
does not really know her, but as he starts living with her he 
discovers that she is beautiful, intelligent and gifted with a 

Physically, Hawaii is exquisite. Palm trees bend into the 
wind and glistening lagoons tempt the eye. Across one of the 
Islands (Kauai) runs a deep geological gash as colorful as the 
Grand Canyon; it tells, in layer after layer of dazzling rock, 
the story of how the Islands sprang from volcanic origins. On 
another island, Hawaii, active volcanoes rise to snow-covered 
peaks nearly fourteen thousand feet high. Waterfalls are so 
numerous they are not named and cliffs that drop two thousand 
feet into the sea are common. 

It is a land of flowers, so brilliant that they are difficult 
to visualize. They blossom all year round: orchids, torch ginger, 
plumiera, hibiscus and bird-of-paradise. There is the beefsteak 
plant, with leaves the size of platters and startling red. There 

8 From " 'Aloha* for the Fiftieth State," by Tames A. Michener, author of Tales of 
the South Pacific, Hawaii, and other novels. New York Times Magazine, p 144-. 
Ap. 19, '59. Copyright 1959 by James A. Michener. Reprinted by permission of the 


Is the lowly croton, a winsome shrub whose iridescent leaves 
cover a spectrum of more than twenty colors, dominated by 
gold and purple and rust. This is my favorite. 

But most of all, Hawaii is a land of people, an amalgam 
of many types. Two per cent are full-blooded Hawaiians, 
brothers of those Polynesians who inhabit Tahiti and Samoa; 
16 per cent are part-Hawaiian, and this segment is growing; 
25 per cent are ordinary mainland white Americans, and since 
immigration from Asia is halted while, with statehood, move- 
ment from the mainland will increase, this is the fastest-growing 
group; 2 per cent are Puerto Ricans; and I per cent are from 
European countries. That leaves 54 per cent as having come 
from Asia: Filipinos, 12 per cent; Chinese, 6 per cent; Koreans, 
1 per cent; and Japanese, 35 per cent, which makes them the 
largest single ethnic group. 

The most important fact about Hawaii is that these varied 
peoples live together in harmony. There is practically no race 
discrimination. . . . However, many Caucasians and Orientals 
prefer to live strictly within their own communities, and there 
is no great flood of intermarriage. A Caucasian boy who wants 
to marry a Japanese girl may have a very tough time, indeed 
mostly from the Japanese family. 

Two common rumors about Hawaii must be rejected. First, 
Hawaii is not going to be submerged in an Oriental tidal wave. 
An educated guess would suggest that today the economic con- 
trol of the Islands is vested as follows: white Americans, 70 
per cent; Chinese, 20 per cent; Japanese, 10 per cent. Second, 
Hawaii is not governed dictatorially by the "Big Five," the 
informal combination of sugar factors who once ruled the 
Islands in a benevolent feudalism. The Big Five are still strong, 
capable and conservative, but they are not major landowners 
and they do not control the legislature nor do they exercise 
a veto power over much of anything. Commercially they are 
an asset to the Islands, and in their junior offices one begins 
to find smart young Chinese and Japanese. 

Credit for the amazing manner in which so many diverse 
people live together so easily must be given to three groups. 
First, the gentle Polynesians who inhabited the Islands originally 
were by nature inclined to accept other races, and the dominant 
spirit of Hawaii has always been aloha, gracious welcome. 


Second, the missionaries who stamped the Islands with their 
rigorous concepts were liberal Congregationalists from New Eng- 
land who believed in fellowship, education and the immanent 
presence of God. Hawaii's heritage derives from New England, 
not California, and Chinese immigrants were not abused in 
the Islands because the missionaries would not tolerate such 
behavior. It has been said, "These missionaries did not love 
Chinese and Japanese, but they did love justice." On this basic 
Christian justice, Hawaii was founded. 

But the aloha of the Polynesians and the rectitude of the 
missionaries would have accomplished little if the next wave 
of immigrants had been unequal to the occasion. Chinese and 
Japanese in large numbers were imported to work the sugar 
fields and after indentures of ten years were supposed to go back 
to Asia. Instead, they saved money, kept out of trouble, and 
soon owned either stores or lands. They were admirable citi- 
zens and built themselves securely into Hawaiian society. Their 
major characteristic was an overwhelming passion for education, 
and in the early days it was not uncommon for a Japanese 
field hand making 77 cents a day to send five children through 
high school and university. The ablest son might even go on 
to become a lawyer at Michigan or a doctor at Perm. Among 
the best-educated people in America are the Chinese and Japa- 
nese of Hawaii. 

Five additional assets help make Hawaii a fine state. The 
population is young and vigorous. Of a dozen political leaders, 
eight will be under forty. . . . 

Hawaii is a wealthy state. It pays enormous taxes to the 
Federal Government. People live well. There are no extensive 
slums or depressed areas. Citizens save money and invest in the 
future. If one considers only the financial balance sheet, Amer- 
ica got a great bargain when she accepted Hawaii. 

Contrary to the popular image, men in Hawaii work hard. 
Hawaii was not originally suited to sugar and pineapple, for 
there were deficiencies in the soil and never enough water. 
Clever men corrected the soil and dug for water deep wells 
and miles of tunnels through the hearts of mountains. If Hawaii 
is a paradise and I think it is men made it so. 

Hawaii is by far the most advanced state culturally that 
has ever been admitted to the Union. It has a famous prepara- 


tory school dating back to the 1840's, a strong university, fine 
churches, interesting newspapers and television stations. Its his- 
torical libraries are immensely rich, and its symphony and 
theatrical groups strong. But the intellectual glory of Hawaii 
is its pair of museums: the Bishop is about the world's best in 
Pacific lore; the Academy of Arts owns one of the finest col- 
lections of Oriental art. 

Finally, Hawaii is a forward-looking state. Its labor laws 
are more liberal than those of many other areas. It spends a 
high percentage of its income on education. Its health services 
are first rate and the proud citizen is apt to say, "We have the 
best hospitals and the poorest jails in America." Hawaii pre- 
fers it that way. 

I could continue for many pages listing the virtues of Hawaii, 
but ... I think it might be more instructive to explain some 
of the problems that face the Islands. 

Land. No large area of the United States is more limited 
by land shortage than Hawaii. On Oahu, the site of Honolulu, 
population density is 835 per square mile, a figure comparable 
to Belgium's and exceeding Indonesia's. At every point this 
lack of land inhibits growth. Men cannot find land for either 
their businesses or their homes, and one of the principal reasons 
people leave Hawaii is the complaint: a We couldn't find a 
place to live." 

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that what land exists 
is held in large parcels by a few. The six principal owners 
control 26 per cent of all available land. Sixty owners control 
80 per cent, and since they have been able to prevent their 
holdings from being properly taxed, that burden falls upon 
personal income. 

In Honolulu a man doesn't buy land by the acre. He buys 
it by the square foot, and a reasonable figure for a good lot 
would be $2.50 a foot, or about $110,000 an acre provided 
he could find one. Choice land runs about $1.2 million an 
acre. What the home-seeker does is to lease a plot for fifty-five 
years with the understanding that each ten years the terms of 
his lease may be renegotiated upward. 

Many businesses seem reluctant to launch major projects on 
land they cannot own and on which they face upward renegotia- 
tion every ten years. 


Taxes. Since land is not adequately taxed, income has to be 
overtaxed, and Hawaii is one of the most heavily burdened areas 
in the world. Personal income taxes quickly rise to the 9 per 
cent level, topped by an across-the-board levy of 3.5 per cent 
on any business activity. This makes retirement of people with 
middle incomes to Hawaii rather unlikely. Artists, writers and 
musicians should also think twice before fleeing to paradise; 
they, too, must pay 3.5 per cent on their business activity. And 
because Hawaii has such a youthful population, much of which 
earns no income, personal taxes will probably rise rather than 

Economy. Fifteen years ago Hawaii was in a rather more 
precarious position than now. Then Island income depended 
upon military expenditures, sugar and pineapples, in that order, 
and a disruption in any one could have plunged the Islands into 
depression. Today the economy rests on five pillars. The mili- 
tary investment, represented by sixteen major installations, in- 
cluding Pearl Harbor, Hickam Air Force Base and Schofield 
Barracks, with 50,000 uniformed personnel, 50,000 dependents 
and 20,000 civilian employees, accounts for 38 per cent of the 
Islands' income or $327 million yearly; then come construction 
($185 million), sugar ($145 million), pineapples ($124 million), 
and tourism ($100 million). 

It seems likely that the last category will ultimately rise to 
second place, for there are few areas in America more appealing 
than Hawaii. But this introduces a major problem: as tourists 
increase, the natural facilities that attract them diminish. The 
physical appearance of Waikiki has slipped in the past decade 
and those responsible seem to lack both the vision and the 
ambition to correct the drift. New resort hotels in less developed 
areas are needed and such projects are being actively pursued. 

Labor -management relations. Hawaii has not yet achieved a 
mature attitude on the interlocking responsibilities of labor and 
management. Because the Big Five long refused to permit 
unionization, labor leaders find it profitable to revive old bitter- 
ness in a manner that became unfashionable on the mainland 
twenty years ago. And because some leaders of the longshore- 
men's union were at one time communistically inclined, man- 
agement tends to castigate all labor as extremely radical. How- 
ever, the smart young executives who are now assuming leader- 


ship of the great corporations are finding it possible to work 
with labor. 

Bloc voting. A constant fear in Hawaii is that the various 
races may begin to vote in blocs, Caucasians voting only for 
Caucasian politicians, Orientals only for Orientals. But a study 
of voting records fails to show that this has so far happened. 
Governor Bill Quinn, an astute politician guesses: "Hawaii will 
probably become a lot like Boston. If a Japanese voter doesn't 
know anyone on the ticket, he'll naturally vote for a Japanese, 
the way the Irish vote Irish in Boston, on the grounds that 
'he's one of us. s But I have found that if any of our voters know 
the men running, they pick and choose with great intelligence." 

Imbalance among the Islands. Hawaii's second permanent 
headache, after land, is the fact that, while the island of Oahu 
grows richer and gains in population, the neighboring islands, 
which are in many respects more attractive, grow poorer and 
lose population. Thus Oahu, with only 9 per cent of the land, 
produces about 80 per cent of the income and houses 79 per 
cent of the population. Legislating thus becomes a dogfight 
between Oahu and the rest of the pack. If tourists could be 
lured away from conventional Waikiki to the neighboring is- 
lands, part of the necessary corrective would have been under- 
taken; but since this seems difficult to do, the imbalance will 
probably worsen. 

Lack of support for culture. The fine cultural institutions 
which I have praised have been largely created and supported 
by the private charity of the great missionary and industrial 
families, but the time has come when these older families 
should not be expected to continue this burden. Yet replace- 
ments have not been found. Rich Orientals have not discovered 
that Uncle Sam, through generous provisions in tax laws, makes 
it prudent to give money to public institutions. 

For example, on the mainland a man who graduates from 
Harvard may express his mature gratitude with the gift of a 
chair, but this does not happen in Hawaii where the lack of 
support suffered by the university is a scandal. 

The "da kine" plague. An unnecessary handicap faced by 
Hawaii is its addiction to pidgin English, a barbarous lingua 
franca derived from bad English, Hawaiian, Chinese, Portuguese 
and Japanese, all delivered in an incredible sing-song. The 


phrase "da kine," from "that kind," is used in everything. A 
man who wants to tell his friend that a sandwich costs too 
much will sing, "Eh, blalah! Da kine sammitch pipty cent takai 
too much!" 

Sensible parents try to combat pidgin, but it remains a 
damnable burden. Entire schools succumb to it and occasion- 
ally even teachers take the easy way, so that one generation 
after another hampers itself by addiction to this folly. How- 
ever, some firms are beginning to reject young people who speak 
pidgin and the university is trying to stamp out the barbarism. 

Lack of a name. A minor, but serious, problem is that there 
is no name for the people who inhabit Hawaii. A man who 
lives in Texas is a Texan and is proud of it. I used to be a 
Pennsylvanian and for a while a New Yorker. But what am I 
now? I can't be called a Hawaiian, because that name is re- 
served for the Polynesians. Possibly we will all become "Is- 
landers," but in the meantime the fact that we have no com- 
mon name perpetuates old cleavages. 

Discrimination. Since Hawaii is famous for the fact that 
all its people live together in enviable harmony, it is regrettable 
that a few major institutions still practice racial segregation. 
There are clubs where Orientals are not permitted, fine resi- 
dential streets where they are not welcome to live. (On the 
other hand, Orientals have other clubs to which Caucasians 
are not admitted.) With the passage of years such customs 
seem bound to vanish. In the meantime they do little harm 
and do not deter me from stating that people live together 
more harmoniously in Hawaii than in any other area I know. 

Striking a balance between strength and weakness, it is obvi- 
ous that Hawaii is going to be a strong state. It is young, 
progressive, adventurous. It is able to pay its way and to con- 
tribute richly to American life. Its major contributions will 
probably be along these lines. 

Vacation land. In addition to its great natural beauty, 
Hawaii has an almost perfect climate. It never gets as hot as 
New York does in summer. It never gets cold. About ten days a 
year, when the northeast trade winds fail to blow, things can 
get a bit sticky. For the rest of the time there is probably no 
place in the world with a better climate. Hawaii is thus an 


ideal vacation land and, with jet aircraft, is practically next 
door to places like Chicago and St. Louis. 

Leadership in internal problems. It is not yet clear what 
kind of men the Islands will send back to Washington. . . . 
Possibly one or two will be Oriental, for Hawaii has a wealth 
of able Chinese and Japanese who would grace any legislative 
assembly in the world. But whoever goes to Washington will 
embody the Hawaiian spirit of aloha, and will be well grounded 
in American principles. Such men, or perhaps women, will 
lend our national leadership a breadth of experience which will 
be good for America. 

The United States faces grave internal problems arising from 
race relations. In the next decade states like Alabama, Missis- 
sippi, Georgia, and South Carolina will undergo trying experi- 
ences in which the tensions of Little Rock may be repeated 
many times over. America is going to be pleasantly surprised at 
what Hawaii will be able to contribute to the relaxation of 
such tensions. 

Hawaiian senators and representatives are going to be men of 
the most conciliatory character. They are not going to shout 
and bellow. By their quiet precept they will encourage all who 
seek logical and unemotional solutions. They will be proof 
that conciliation is possible. 

On the other hand, agitators and men of ill will can no 
longer cry, "It can't be done!" In Hawaii, quietly and without 
anger, we have done it. 

Help with foreign problems. One of America's major con- 
cerns is its relationship to foreign powers, and we are trying 
to assure uncommitted or wavering nations that they ought to 
trust in our good intentions. A serious bar to our efforts has 
been the bad publicity stemming from Little Rock. The Com- 
munist Chinese and Russians have abused us severely on that 

But with the admission of Hawaii, the Communist propa- 
ganda line collapses. Congress has demonstrated anew our his- 
toric attitude toward other peoples. We have shown that we 
can accept men of varying colors. Russia claims "Americans 
hate Orientals." We do not, and we have proved that we don't. 

Let me put the significance of Hawaiian statehood this way: 
Today the job of every State Department official in Asia and 


Africa has become a little easier; the words of every United 
States Information Service man have become a lot more per- 

But the greatest boon to America will be in the realm of 
the spirit. For sixty-one years our nation held in the middle 
of the Pacific Ocean a group of islands to which statehood had 
been implicitly promised. Over the years, because we feared 
distance and skins of different colors and perhaps because we 
feared the responsibility of taking a new step we failed to 
fulfill that implied promise. Then, one by one, the reasons 
against statehood vanished until at last the nation was faced 
with one simple moral problem: Were we willing to redeem 
an old pledge? 

Those of us in Hawaii will appreciate what a bold step 
America has taken in extending statehood to the Islands. That 
Congress chose to do so is a supreme joy to most of the 
Islanders, and we are determined that America shall never 
regret that daring decision. And for its part, the United States 
today is a little stronger, a little more secure, a little more 
courageous. To me it looks like a great bargain all the way 



Alaska and Hawaii are the "youngest" states in more ways 
than one. Their populations have an average age which is lower 
than that of any other state in the Union. Beyond that, as well, 
the new states appear young at heart. There is a zest and a 
swing to life in these outlying regions of America that give 
them certainly in the case of Alaska and even in the case of 
Hawaii a frontier spirit and buoyancy. In their own highly 
individualistic ways, the new states are clearing new frontiers 
in the realm of social relations for America. 

This is particularly the case in Hawaii, a long-fabled melting 
pot of race and creed. Here men have learned by the pressure 
of necessity and thickly-settled living to open their doors to 
others of widely varying background and nationality. In Alaska, 
perhaps the rugged conditions of frontier living have made the 
worth of a human being measurable in terms other than skin 
pigmentation or national origin. Yet because both of these states 
have dynamic societies in a state of constant flux, they have their 
problems, too. Hawaii has made enormous strides within the 
past decades in bringing its nonwhite population to a status of 
equality, but there remain some influences working toward an 
older order of affairs. Alaska strives mightily to do justice to its 
"natives" the Eskimo, the Indian, and the Aleut yet these 
groups remain in danger of suffering from the injustices of a 
rapidly evolving society. 

This section examines life and the social structure, with 
particular emphasis upon so-called minority problems. In the 
first article, a writer whose sympathies are obviously strongly 
attached to the forty-ninth state gives his colorful impressions 
of day-to-day living in Alaska. Readers may be surprised to note 
that all is not dogsled and snowdrift. In the second article an 
anthropologist discusses the problems of the "new Alaskan 
Eskimo" the Eskimo who is aware of mechanical refrigeration 
and, what's more, appreciates it. The next article is a forceful 


enumeration of the rights of Alaska's native peoples and the 
wrongs currently being perpetrated against them. It calls for 
greater attention to problem areas. 

In the final two articles, dealing with race relations in 
Hawaii, a professor of sociology gives first a historical summary 
of that state's racial heritage and next an over-all view of the 
status of racial groups in the Hawaii of today. 


The combination of being the largest state in the Union and 
having the smallest population gives Alaska a statistical portrait 
of extreme isolation, "bush" living. The population density is 
less than 1 person per square mile, compared with an average 
U.S. density of more than 50 per square mile. In some areas of 
Alaska, a "village" may consist of a handful of Indians or 
Eskimos or a cluster of hunters' shacks in a permanent camp. 
Nearly half the 287 inhabited areas of Alaska contain less than 
100 persons. In some 30 per cent of the remaining inhabited 
areas, the population is between 100 and 200. From these figures 
it is possible to "prove" and many have done just that the 
isolated existence of Alaskans. 

However, expect to find most Alaskans living a dull, insular 
life and you may expect to be disappointed. Actually, nearly 
three quarters of all Alaskans live in and around the four largest 
cities . . . [Anchorage, Fairbanks, Ketchikan, and Juneau]. 

The great majority of Alaskans live comfortably in modern 
urban and suburban communities. There are, to be sure, rugged 
individualists who prefer to live in comparatively primitive shacks 
or log cabins, miles from town, but even these dwellings are 
usually equipped with modern conveniences electricity, running 
water, telephones, and sometimes automatic oil or LP [liquefied 
petroleum] gas heat. A visitor to Spenard or City View, suburbs 
of Anchorage, might well believe he had never left Hempstead, 
Long Island, the outskirts of Los Angeles, or the suburbs of 
Denver. Many parts of Juneau, in fact, resemble the quiet, 
picturesque, hilly streets of San Francisco. 

the book This Is Alaska, by Harry Kursh, who has traveled widely in 
Alaska and who has written several books that touch upon the state. Prentice-Hall. 
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. '61. p 30-42. 1961 by Harry Kursh. Published by Prentice- 
Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Reprinted by permission. 


The most distinctive feature of life in Alaska is that it 
represents a melting pot of Americans from every state in the 
Union. Consequently, most Alaskans tend to live, work and 
build in the American tradition. Progress is apt to be character- 
ized by bigger and better split-level homes and well-kept lawns, 
a car in every garage, supermarket shopping, PTA meetings, 
weekly Rotary luncheons, Lion lectures, and a Chamber of 
Commerce in every town with two or more merchants. 

The most rapid period of population growth for Alaska oc- 
curred after World War II. In October 1867, when a sixteen- 
year-old boy raised the first Stars and Stripes over Alaska, there 
were only about 500 white persons in the territory and approxi- 
mately 33,000 aborigines (Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts). Since 
then the native population has remained almost static, but the 
total population has increased from 128,000 in 1950 to more than 
220,000, including about 47,000 military personnel and their 
dependents, most of whom are stationed at Elmendorf Air Force 
Base and Fort Richardson, outside Anchorage, and at Ladd and 
Eielson Air Force Bases near Fairbanks. However, the military 
and their dependents have been in Alaska in such great numbers 
and for so many years that Alaskans tend to consider them part 
of the total resident population. 

For the most part, newcomers from other states should have 
no difficulty in adjusting to life in Alaska. There is little in 
Alaskan social and cultural life that may seem foreign or unique 
to Americans. 

A Closer Look at Alaskans 

When an Alaskan says "native," he generally refers to an 
Eskimo, Indian, or Aleut, of whom there are approximately 

Most Eskimos live in the far north, the Indians in the south- 
eastern areas, and the Aleuts, a relatively small number, in the 
southwestern areas, chiefly the Aleutian Islands and the Alaska 
Peninsula. Many of the natives have retained their cultural and 
tribal traditions, but nearly all speak English and in almost 
every respect are "Americanized. 5 ' 

There are also about 5,000 other nonwhites in Alaska, mostly 
American Negroes and Filipinos. The latter came long ago to 
work in the fishing industries. 


Among normative Alaskans there are basically two categories 
of Americans: those who came to Alaska for a specific Job or 
under military assignment and chose to remain; and those who 
came to find a new way of life. According to an Alaskan market 
study published by Benton and Bowles of New York, the "average 
Alaskan is a newcomer. He and his family have lived in the 
forty-ninth state for only eight or ten years." 

Youthful and Young at Heart 

Essentially, Alaska is a youthful state. There are proportion- 
ately more younger people in Alaska than in any other state. 
The number of children under five years of age is twice the 
national average; and the number of Alaskans over sixty-five 
is half the national average. . . . 

This youthful composition of Alaska is one of its principal 
assets and clearly a basis for rapid growth. 

But in recent years Alaska has been attracting an increasing 
number of newcomers who are young more at heart than in age. 
Many arrive having successfully raised a family elsewhere and 
then grown restive with a sedate, almost routine way of life: 

Typical was the story of Mr. and Mrs. Ed Perkins, formerly 
of Seattle, both around sixty years of age. He had been a car- 
penter, she a teacher. To explain why they came to Alaska and 
why they enjoy their new life in the forty-ninth state, Mr. and 
Mrs. Perkins like to tell the story of a friend who came to visit 
them at the cabin they had built themselves, overlooking an 
exquisite view of sea and mountains near Cook Inlet, not far 
from Anchorage. Plainly puzzled and constantly looking about 
the cabin, the friend would remark, "I don't know why you left 
the comforts of your Seattle home where all you had to do was 
push a button; here you don't even have electricity. You even 
have to carry water to flush that 'modem' toilet you brag aboutl" 

"He kept that up all the time he was here," Mrs. Perkins said, 
"and he couldn't even see the inlet below us, or the mountains 
across, or the woods behind us. And while he was here we talked 
about a camping trip we were going to take. He said, 'Camping 
trip! Great Scot, you're camping all the time!'" 

Most people, young and old, have chosen to remain in Alaska 
because they are lured by the state's great outdoors or the sense 


of adventure that comes with working and living in a land that 
still throbs with pioneer spirit. A forty-two-year-old New Yorker 
I met near Anchorage, where he was building his own home in a 
heavily wooded area, told how he had abandoned an active 
partnership in a prospering business in New York and decided 
to settle in Alaska after having made a vacation trip to the 
new state. "It's the spirit of the place that gets you," he said. 
"Everybody's busy building something. It's exciting." 

The great spirit of Alaska is infectious. It is the common 
denominator of Alaskans everywhere and derives from a sense of 
sharing in the challenge of building something new. It is mass 

I shall never forget my conversation with a young former 
Brooklynite, an intelligent, well-informed man who had not 
completed high school. Of his eight years in Alaska, he said: 

e The most wonderful thing about Alaska is that everybody 
works together and helps each other. You don't feel as if you 
are alone in the world. When I lived in Brooklyn, I think I was 
the most selfish man alive. I wouldn't go around the corner or 
lift a finger to help anyone, unless I knew it would also help me. 

"I've changed up here and love it. One night I got a phone 
call from a new neighbor, moved in only a few months before, 
and I had hardly known him. His car had broken down, and 
he wanted to know if I could come out to help him. I put my 
coat on, hopped in my car and took off. It was an eight-hundred- 
mile round trip!" 

The former Brooklynite's sentiments are echoed by the 
Reverend Richard T. Lambert, of Fairbanks, who has said: "This 
is really not a get-rich-quick area, nor is it a place where one 
could drift easily alone, living to oneself. One must come expect- 
ing to depend upon others and helping other people in turn." 

A unique example of the "Alaska spirit" was the time the 
canneries of Cordova were caught short-handed by an unexpected 
bonanza in the salmon run. It turned out to be the largest catch 
in nearly a generation, but help was urgently needed to pack 
the catch. Almost everyone in town men, housewives, children, 
shopkeepers, teachers, even the local banker turned to in force, 
donning oilskins and aprons to help the canneries. 

Just as horsethieving in the old West was an odious sort of 
crime, stealing property in Alaska is considered an abominable 


act of antineighborliness. A stroller down a main street in any 
town is apt to pass auto after auto rilled with an assortment of 
supplies and personal valuables, but not one door locked. A 
wealthy Alaskan, who leaves his home for an annual business 
trip to Los Angeles, and has been doing so for eighteen years, 
has never locked his front door. Many Alaskans have no front- 
door locks. 

The Alaskan Personality 

Alaskan youthfulness and spirit are without doubt the most 
important "natural" resources in Alaska, motivating Alaskans to 
work hard. The same spirit also generates a friendliness, a 
warmth, a charm and informality that may be seen anywhere: 
crossing the street, at the corner drugstore, or at a PTA meeting. 
It may be seen at almost any swank cocktail lounge where men 
in slacks and sweaters mingle freely with women in evening 
clothes. In fact, a type of dress usually consisting of an "Eisen- 
hower" jacket and slacks or whipcord trousers is called the 
"Alaska tuxedo" because so many men show up dressed that way 
at social events. 

But it is not an affectation, a calculated attempt to be differ- 
ent. It is a way of life in Alaska. The message is obvious, Alaska's 
way of saying, "I am a nonconformist, a rugged individualist 
at heart. I like being with people but I don't like people telling 
me what I should or shouldn't like for myself." 

I saw a rather vivid demonstration of this couldn't-care-less 
attitude on several occasions in Anchorage. Involved was a husky 
young man who sported a thick, red beard, an immense handle- 
bar mustache, begrimed coveralls, and an old felt hat cut to fit 
atop his head like a precarious fez. At the end of a day's labor 
on his homestead, not having a car, nor time to change into 
something more formal, he would drive into Anchorage aboard 
his open tractor, roll casually along the modern shopping section 
(Fourth Avenue) and maneuver into a parking-meter space just 
as if he were coming to town in a chauffered limousine. He'd 
jump from his tractor, pause to chat with friends, or go window 
shopping, or stop in at a cocktail lounge, and at no time did 
anybody stare at him as though he were an odd-ball. 


Where and How Alaskans Live 

The great majority of Alaskans live comfortably in conven- 
tional homes within city or town limits. As a matter of fact, 
there has been an increasing demand for apartment dwellings 
in Alaska's larger cities. In the urbanized centers there are 
modern supermarkets, ranch homes, split-level homes, and 
Cape Cods, with and without attached garages. There are movie 
houses, cocktail lounges, bowling alleys, the usual shortage of 
parking space, and the ubiquitous pneumatic drill, symbol of 
a changing society. 

In contrast, almost every urban area has its share of Alaskans 
who live in comparatively crude shacks or log cabins, erected 
by do-it-yourselfers making use of backyard timber. Some 
"shacks" are authentic leftovers of the Klondike age, but usually 
with all the comforts of modern living. Some Alaskans even 
prefer the Klondike look. In one log cabin, the type seen in 
travelogues on Alaska, I saw a roomful of the most luxurious 
Hollywood-fashion, white leather furniture money could buy. 
The owner, an Alaskan businesswoman who preferred the "es- 
thetic appeal" of a log cabin, was also partial to modern furnish- 
ings. But she would never trade her log cabin for a mansion. 

As a rule, Alaskans are fairly gregarious. But this does not 
mean they gather in throngs. Most simply enjoy informal get- 
togethers with friends and just talking around coffee at the 
kitchen table. (According to the American Telephone and 
Telegraph files, Alaskans do more talking on the telephone 
than people in any other state. Alaskans average 630 calls per 
person annually, compared with 426 for the U.S. average.) 

Making conversation in Alaska is easy. When strangers 
meet, the usual ice-breaker is, "And where are you from?" 

Alaskans go to movies, listen to radio, watch television, read a 
great deal and drink! They do far more drinking than any 
other group in the United States, a fact that is immediately 
obvious to visitors. In most towns, there are cocktail lounges 
and package liquor stores everywhere. Comedian Joe E. Brown 
once quipped that Fourth Avenue in Anchorage is the "longest 
bar in the world," a rather pungent description for nearly half 
a mile of an almost unbroken line of cafes on both sides of 
the street. . . . [But] drunkenness on the streets is rare. 


All told, there are about a dozen radio stations and five tele- 
vision stations in Alaska, within the range of perhaps 90 per 
cent of the population. Except for local shows, which feature 
such popular programs as illustrated talks on hunting and fish- 
ing, nearly everything on Alaskan television is on film. Most 
events of any significance may be at least a week old before 
appearing on Alaskan TV screens, and sometimes the Impact 
and thrills are gone because the details will have been obtained 
from radio or newspapers. For example, I once asked a thirty- 
eight-year-old family man who had accumulated considerable 
wealth through a successful business (restaurant) after thirteen 
years in Anchorage, "Since you have made so much money, 
what is there that you would most like to do now? Return 
to your home town, live it up?" 

"No," he said unhesitatingly, "but I'd sure give a thousand 
bucks to see a big league ball game." 

"Don't you see baseball on TV?" 

"Yes. But it's stale. The thrill's gone. I always know the 

Of six daily newspapers in Alaska, perhaps only the two in 
Anchorage and the one in Fairbanks resemble modern journal- 
ism. But even these do not place great stress on national or 
international affairs, unless there are Alaska angles to the story. 
Alaskans who desire to keep up with world affairs usually sub- 
scribe to the weekly news magazines or the air editions of the 
New York Times. Quite a few pay thirty cents for same-day 
Seattle newspapers delivered by air, but an impartial observer 
would have to say that the thirty cents is wasted, for the 
Anchorage Daily News, and Times, and the Fairbanks News- 
Miner, widely and efficiently distributed at ten cents each, are 
equal if not superior to the Seattle newspapers. 

Most Alaskans do not seem to be particularly sports-minded. 
Except for high school teams and service teams, there is little in 
the way of organized sport. But Alaskans are certainly fun- 
minded and will participate actively in community festivities 
and fairs. 

Perhaps the most colorful event in Alaska if not in the 
entire North country is the annual Fur Rendezvous, held in 
February in Anchorage. The Fur Rendezvous converts Anchor- 
age for several days into a carnival city, and attracts Alaskans 


from everywhere. It is part of a tradition that goes back to 
early nineteenth century Alaska, when fur buyers met with 
Indians to trade, and after trading would celebrate their deals 
with firewater. During the modem Fur Rendezvous, Eskimos 
come from the north to display their crafts, perform dramas, 
dances, and sports; and there are dogsled races in the streets 
of Anchorage, sometimes for stakes running into thousands of 
dollars. Men and trucks sometimes work through the night, 
carting snow from the outskirts to spread about the streets of 
Anchorage in order to assure good dogsled racing! The event 
even draws one contestant from as far away as Massachusetts. 

There are more culturally advanced forms of entertainment 
in the major cities, such as concerts and theatrical productions 
which usually play to standing-room-only audiences. Some- 
times the performances are by local talent and are quite ambi- 
tious. Anchorage, for instance, has a large symphony orchestra 
of its own, as well as a choral group numbering 100 to 120 
voices, which participate in an annual June music festival. But 
local community groups have been increasingly sponsoring 
concerts by well-known musicians and artists invited from the 
great halls of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. 

Alaskans are avid readers, and support their libraries. A 
recently constructed library in Anchorage is one of the best- 
equipped and most modern I have seen anywhere in the world, 
and there was hardly an afternoon or evening that I did not 
see the library crowded with school children and adult readers. 
Typically, the library subscribes to scores of outside publications 
in order to satisfy the Alaskans* hunger for news and knowledge. 
Several magazines are published in Alaska. One of these, the 
Alaskan Sportsman, is of exceptional quality in its fiction and 
nonfiction and tends to reflect the true spirit of Alaskans. 

Social Interrelations 

Nowhere in Alaska is there any evidence of resentment toward 
cheechakos, newcomers. A possible exception is Juneau, where 
many of Alaska's oldest families have been established and the 
few newcomers may feel a certain social "chill" in the air. 

But as a rule cheechako is a friendly term and newcomers are 
made to feel welcome. Yet Alaskans can be piqued readily by 


any sudden intrusion of new ideas or talent particularly if 
such intrusion tends to make some Alaskan enterprise, or insti- 
tution, or personality, seem mediocre by comparison. 

To a great extent this may be due to fear, or insecurity. 
Many Alaskans have been successful in business, society, or poli- 
tics as a result of individual tenacity and hard work and some- 
times sheer courage, rather than superior talents. As a frontier 
society, Alaska has attracted many whose abilities are some- 
what lukewarm, because it has been relatively easy for them to 
reach the top and remain there in a frontier setting, as com- 
pared with a highly competitive society. Mediocrity is frequently 
apparent, particularly in business. Accordingly a smart chee- 
chako, no matter how skilled, ingenious or experienced, does not 
impose new ideas drastically or suddenly. He learns to take 
his time. 

Women in Alaska 

For the most part, women in Alaska lead a typically Ameri- 
can family life, tending to home, children, and garden, and they 
read about Dan McGrew and the "lady known as Lou" with as 
much curiosity as women who have never been to Alaska. 
What is perhaps most characteristic of women in the forty-ninth 
state is that many work, either part-time or full-time; many 
join their husbands in outdoor fun; many are quite handy with 
paint brushes and tools around the house. 

Doris Dooley grew so handy with tools soon after her ar- 
rival in Fairbanks, about ten years ago, that she was able to 
start her own business, leasing, installing and maintaining soda 
dispensing machines and popcorn vendors. It is not unusual 
to see Doris, a handsome blondish woman in her forties, hop 
off her truck in Fairbanks, with a kit of plumbing tools on her 
way to a repair or installation job. In some other state she'd 
probably be a candidate for town eccentric. But in Fairbanks 
she's just another Alaskan making a go of things. 

Women in Alaska enjoy an unparalleled social and eco- 
nomic equality with men. There are women in trades, politics, 
business and law enforcement. In Anchorage, a familiar sight 
is the attractive motorcycle policewoman, assigned to traffic 


Before statehood, there were many laws passed protecting 
the rights and interests of Alaskan women in such matters as 
minimum pay ($1.50 per hour), equal pay for equal work, and 
protection of property rights in marriage and divorce. These 
laws remain in force. 

One aspect of life, however, that affects women in particu- 
lar, especially housewives with children, is what Alaskans call 
"cabin fever," supposedly a syndrome of boredom and monot- 
ony arising from long periods of darkness and cold during the 
winter. Cabin fever is said to be epidemic in the interior. 

Many ministers and physicians (there are no private psychia- 
trists in Alaska) told me that "cabin fever" is the principal 
social "disease" in Alaska and that it accounts for a higher- than- 
average rate of alcoholism and suicide. Another result of cabin 
fever, according to many Alaskans, is the standard joke known as 
"the spring breakup," indicated by a high rate of separations 
and divorces after the winter. 

Statistical data support the view that incidences of alcoholism 
and suicide in Alaska are above average. But if the rate of 
divorce in Alaska is any indication of cabin fever, the disease 
is not nearly as bad as many make it out to be. The latest 
divorce rate in Alaska was about 2.6 per 1,000 population, but 
there was almost an identical divorce rate for the entire United 

However, more significant is the fact that the divorce rate 
in Alaska in 1945 was much higher 3.9 per 1,000 and has 
been declining steadily ever since, whereas the divorce rate in 
the United States has remained practically unchanged. 

These statistics, of course, are subject to varying interpreta- 
tions. It is entirely possible, for example, that when a mar- 
riage breaks up in Alaska one of the partners is apt to leave 
the state and obtain a divorce elsewhere. But the steadily de- 
clining rate of divorce in Alaska cannot be ignored in view of 
Alaska's increasing population during the same period. My own 
feeling is that Alaskan marriages tend to be more firmly cemented 
because husband and wife share a common goal and affection 
for their way of life and the new state of Alaska. One minister 
put it nicely: "If a man and wife stick it out together in Alaska 
for one full year, not even the Lord can tear them apart." 


A rather common misconception about women in Alaska is 
the oft-heard remark, even among Alaskans, that women go to 
Alaska to get a man because men outnumber women seven to one. 

Single women arrive in Alaska constantly, but not many. 
Most come to take jobs as teachers or as government workers 
in Federal Civil Service. There is no basis., however, for ac- 
cepting the seven-to-one ratio. A liberal estimate would bring 
it down to more manageable proportions, three to one. None- 
theless, Alaska is no huge mantrap for single women. Most 
young men in Alaska are already married. There is, however, 
a definite ratio of three unmarried males to one unmarried 
female in Anchorage and Fairbanks thanks to the unusual 
preponderance of military personnel in those areas. 

But do not conclude that life for unmarried females in 
Alaska is dull. It is anything but that, particularly in Anchor- 
age and Fairbanks. For one thing, both these cities supply ade- 
quate recreational and social resources where young couples can 
have fun. In both cities, there are many socials at community 
and religious centers, and there are a great variety of clubs, 
social, fraternal, professional, and recreational. In Anchorage 
alone, there are more than 150 active social and professional 
societies. In addition, the social resources in both cities are 
substantially augmented by large and well-run functions at 
the various military bases. 

Dating and social life is extremely informal, and there is 
little chance for monotony because Alaska's young folk repre- 
sent not the monolithic cultural pattern of a single community, 
but backgrounds as diverse as America itself. . . . 

Religion in Alaska 

The density of churches in Alaska is high. One community 
of 1,500 supports nine churches! There are almost one hundred 
churches between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Every conceivable 
denomination is represented. Increasingly, the churches are 
playing a vital role in the social lives of Alaskans, providing a 
variety of welfare and counseling services, including a Hospi- 
tality House in Fairbanks for job-seeking girls in need. Recently, 
a $5 million college was started by the Methodist Church in 


Anchorage, and plans have been made for an almost year-by- 
year expansion of the college. 

But Alaskans apparently are not fervent about their religion. 
A well-known religious leader in Alaska said, smilingly, "Alaska 
is still a missionary country as far as religious life is concerned. 
People who come here are essentially escapists, nonconformists. 

"This is a weekend country. Anyone who has any kind of 
camping gear and a car takes off with his family on week- 
ends. I don't blame them. Fd join them if I could, and some- 
times I do." 

Cooperation between religious groups is excellent, although 
there seems to be an undercurrent of animosity between the 
major denominations and those of what some call the "fringe" 
religions, of which there are many in Alaska, operating from 
store-front churches. But discrimination of any sort, religious, 
racial, or social, is almost nonexistent. It is definitely antisocial 
to be a bigot in Alaska. 

Travel in Alaska 

Many arriving in Alaska for the first time are surprised to 
find that Alaskans travel about with ease, even in winter. Of 
the many strange notions held by outsiders regarding travel in 
Alaska, none was more ludicrous than that revealed by a chee- 
chako who thought that during winter, if he had to call for a 
taxi in Alaska, he'd find himself hopping into a dogsled operated 
by an Eskimo crying, "Mush!" 

In some northern portions of Alaska and in the isolated bush 
the dogsled or snowshoes are still the only means of travel in 
winter. But even these are rapidly giving way to the airplane. 

Alaska is the flyingest place in the world. Everybody, it 
would seem, has a pilot's license housewives, ministers, doc- 
tors, nurses, lawyers, Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, salesmen, poli- 
ticians, hunting and fishing enthusiasts. In fact, many sports- 
men who had utilized airplanes avocationally for hunting and 
fishing have become professional bush pilots. 

A few days before my visit to the University of Alaska at 
Fairbanks, an eighteen-year-old Indian girl landed on the campus 
in her own airplane to register as a freshman for the coming 
semester. She had flown, I was told, some six hundred miles 
over extremely rough country. 


According to Alaska Airlines, "78.7 per cent of the population 
use air transportation regularly. The average Alaskan flies 
twenty-eight times as much and as frequently as the citizen in 
the continental United States." Indeed, it is the airplane that 
is really responsible for the "opening" of Alaska's interior. In 
this regard the United States Air Force played a significant role 
shortly after World War II, proving that it was feasible to fly 
heavy equipment into the heartland of Alaska. 

There are about 130 fields and terminals for scheduled air 
transport in Alaska. Added to these are almost 300 landing 
strips scattered about the state. An Alaskan, if he does not fly 
his own airplane, will hop aboard anything from a bush pilot's 
Piper Cub to a DC-7C or jet as casually as a banker takes a 
taxi to lunch on Wall Street 


The mention of Eskimos may bring to mind a bleak and 
desolate expanse of snow with a sled trail in view and an Eskimo 
clinging to the back of a dogsled as he hauls home a freshly 
killed seal. A visual image of this sort would not be inaccurate 
even today, but it represents only a part of modern Eskimo life. 
The old Eskimo way of life is gone forever, and in many respects 
this is saddening. At the same time, some of the harshness 
has been taken out of living in the arctic, and even the most 
conservative Eskimo would not want to return to the days be- 
fore Europeans and Americans arrived in his country. The 
whites brought new objects and ideas to the Eskimo, and these 
have often been accepted. At the same time came new and 
unprecedented problems. 

Eskimos are still the most widely dispersed aboriginal people 
in the Americas. They are spread from Greenland to Alaska 
and even overlap into the Soviet arctic; the total Eskimo popula- 
tion is now in the neighborhood of 55,000 individuals. Most 
Eskimos, wherever they are found, have been drawn into a fur 
trapping and trading economy, but they usually rely upon wild 
animals and fish as their main source of food. The seal is still 

* From "The New Alaskan Eskimo," by Wendell H. Oswalt, Department of Anthro- 
pology and Sociology, University of California at Los Angeles. Amfricas. 13:10-13. 
S. '61. Reprinted from Americas, monthly magazine published by the Pan American 
Union in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, 


the most important single food animal for most Eskimos, al- 
though in some regions salmon, walrus or whales may be locally 
significant Eskimos everywhere are primarily village dwellers 
living in small isolated settlements of less than three hundred 
individuals. There is some tendency to form community politi- 
cal organizations, but most daily activities center about a man, 
his wife and children as the most important economic and social 
unit The Eskimo is truly a family man in the broadest sense 
of the word. 

At present more Eskimos occupy the tundras facing the 
Bering Sea in Alaska than any other region of comparable size 
In the Far North. The six thousand people living there sub- 
sist primarily upon salmon and seal. They know better than 
anyone else the ways in which to set gill nets in order to catch 
salmon as these fish migrate up the rivers to spawn. Likewise 
they know the ways of the seal so very well that to hunt them 
poses no unusual problems. However, these people have come 
to want more than just food, clothing, and shelter. They have 
become accustomed to rifles, ready-made clothing, outboard 
motors, and foods not available in their territory. Their basic 
problem is how to obtain these and other desired items offered 
by the outside world and at the same time not lose their identity 
as Eskimos, for they are justifiably proud of their cultural 

In order to obtain manufactured goods and U.S. foods these 
people do many things, the most important of which is trapping. 
Fortunately for them this is one of the best areas of the world 
in which to obtain wild mink, and so virtually every man traps 
for these fine pelts. They also trap muskrats, land otters, and 
fox in order to exchange the skins for goods at the trading posts. 
In addition, many of the men work during the summer at the 
large salmon canneries along the southern sector of the Bering 
Sea coast so that they may obtain cash. Some men likewise 
work for wages unloading supply ships. All of these things the 
Eskimos do well, and they quickly learn to operate new devices 
such as outboard motors or machinery, but they still have many 
problems in adjusting to the way of life introduced by the white 
man, A look at the Eskimos' history will help us understand 
their present situation. 


The first contacts the Alaskan Eskimos had with Europeans 
were not until early in the nineteenth century. It was dining 
this era that the Russians, who were well-established in southern 
Alaska, began to explore the coastal regions of the Bering Sea 
in an effort to find new sources of fur. The Russian explorers 
and traders were reasonably well entrenched among the Bering 
Sea Eskimos by the 1850's. They obtained so many of the de- 
sired furs that their most northern posts were quite successful. 
Just prior to the purchase of Alaska by the United States in 1867 
the less lucrative trading establishments were abandoned. It is 
noteworthy that the Russians did not attempt to send settlers 
into this area, nor did they ever really have a strong hold over 
the Eskimos. Although the Eskimos traded with the Russians and 
some Eskimo women married Russian men, most of these out- 
siders lived in the region only briefly if at all. The most im- 
portant and enduring Russian introduction was Christianity. 
Some of the Eskimos were baptized and became members of 
the Russian Orthodox Church, and there continue to be many 
practicing Russian Orthodox to this day. 

After the purchase of Alaska the people continued to trap, 
but now they exchanged their pelts for goods at posts main- 
tained by companies trading out of San Francisco. The United 
States was largely disinterested in these people, and the num- 
ber of outsiders coming into the country was few until near the 
turn of the nineteenth century. It was then that two important 
changes took place. First of all Protestant and Roman Catholic 
missionaries became active locally, and they have continued 
their efforts down to the present time. The second change was 
more transient and came as a result of the discovery of gold in 
large quantities in northwestern Canada and interior Alaska. 
The gold strikes brought adventurers from all corners of the 
world into traditionally Eskimo country. Fortunately or un- 
fortunately the Bering Sea coast of Alaska has no gold-bearing 
deposits, and so the prospectors soon left the Eskimos to them- 
selves once again. 

The Government of the United States did not begin to take 
an active interest in the people of this area until about the 
second decade of the twentieth century, and then their concern 
was still quite casual. The Federal Government opened a small 
hospital and began to establish schools, but most schools con- 


tinued to be operated by Protestant and Roman Catholic mis- 
sionaries. Actually it was not until just before World War II 
that the United States began to take serious notice of these 
Eskimos. The Government then established many schools, opened 
a modern hospital, and built some large airports that greatly 
facilitated travel into the region. The increased governmental 
activity has brought many changes, but still the tenor of life 
has been largely unaffected. 

The typical Eskimo village of today is isolated from adjoin- 
ing settlements and occupied by about 120 persons including a 
teacher or two, a trader, and perhaps a resident missionary. 
The villages, located along the coast or adjacent rivers, are a 
blend of the old Eskimo way of life with the new way of life 
that has resulted from U.S. influence, but it is the new way 
that is initially the more apparent A typical community has a 
large wooden school building with attached quarters for the 
teachers. The school is the best-maintained building in the vil- 
lage, and it is here that school children, like their counterparts 
over much of the world, study for about eight months of each 
year. In the community there would also be a store with a 
resident trader, who might be a white or an Eskimo. Most 
trading establishments are well supplied with an assortment of 
hardware and foodstuffs, along with some clothing. Another 
imposing structure is the church, which is most likely Roman 
Catholic, Russian Orthodox, or Moravian. Villagers take con- 
siderable pride in their church, and it is maintained as well as 
their means permit. The only other large building is likely to 
be a new armory for the local unit of the National Guard, 
which maintains Eskimo contingents in some settlements. The 
armory may be used for community affairs, but more often for 
military drills and exercises. 

In this treeless region many families live in dwellings made 
from logs that have drifted down the rivers to the sea from 
the forested areas of interior Alaska. Other families, living 
where even driftwood is scarce, build their houses primarily of 
sod. However, there is an increasing tendency for all the people 
to construct their homes of lumber, which they purchase from 
the Government or from a local trader. Most homes are single- 
room dwellings in which there is a wood-burning stove, a table, 
chairs, beds, and a cupboard, in addition to various storage con- 


tainers. Throughout the settlement are other structures, such as 
fish-drying racks, buildings for smoking fish, and food caches. 
The inevitable crowds of dogs are chained to stakes scattered 
about the edges of the settlement 

A village of this type certainly gives the impression of tran- 
quillity, except perhaps for the occasional snarls of feuding dogs. 
The people, when first met, seem reluctant to say very much, 
not from animosity but because they are genuinely shy and re- 
tiring among strangers. Once the awkwardness of initial intro- 
ductions has been overcome, the visitor finds the Eskimos to be 
gracious hosts and good friends. Eskimos justifiably have the 
reputation of being very jovial, but at the same time they are 
far from idle and carefree. It is essential for them to work 
hard during most of the year if they are to support themselves. 
In the summer they are busy fishing, while hunting seals may 
take place at almost any season. From late fall to late spring 
they trap. Their year is filled with diverse activities with little 
time for boredom. Midwinter is the longest period of forced in- 
activity, but even then the people usually are busy chopping 
wood for their stoves and repairing equipment that will serve 
them during the coming spring. 

When a visitor has reached a point of real familiarity with 
the village and its people he soon comes to realize that all is not 
quite so idyllic as it might appear. There are problems, big and 
small, that lend uncertainty to arctic life. 

For example, hunting migratory waterfowl is no longer as 
unrestricted as it formerly was. The flat, alluvial tundra region 
is an important breeding center for ducks, swans, and geese. 
These birds migrate north in the spring, nest on the tundra, 
and then return to the south in the fall. For generations the 
Eskimos have hunted these birds in the spring and, in addition, 
have killed large numbers of the young throughout the summer. 
However, for many years treaties between the United States, 
Canada, and Mexico have restricted all parties, including 
Alaskans to a fall hunting season for waterfowl. Thus, the 
Eskimos are legally deprived of a source of fresh food during a 
season when they need it very much. Occasionally Government 
enforcement agents fly into the region and arrest Eskimos for 
hunting the birds out of season. 

The Eskimos regard this as totally unfair and point out that 
they have always hunted these birds in the spring and summer. 


The conservationists on the other hand argue that such hunt- 
ing practices very seriously deplete the breeding stock. It is ap- 
parent that neither the Eskimo nor the interested public want 
to see these birds . exterminated, but the vital and perplexing ques- 
tion is how the differences can be reconciled. To begin with, 
the whites have never learned the Eskimos' beliefs about the 
birds. If they had they would know that the Eskimos think that 
waterfowl breed in the north in the summer and again in the 
south in the winter. For this reason, they feel that the birds 
will always be abundant. The fact that this idea is not correct 
can become apparent to the Eskimos only after a widespread 
program of education has been successfully carried out. At the 
same time the Government, if it must prohibit the Eskimos 
from hunting birds out of season, should feel morally obligated 
to help the Eskimos make up for the loss. This could be ac- 
complished by introducing scientific fur management practices 
so that the people could realize a greater and richer catch of 
fur animals. Then, although one source of food would be taken 
away, another would be substituted through the added income 
with which to purchase meat. 

In order to improve their living standard the Eskimos have 
become more intensive trappers, and at the same time they are 
becoming concentrated in larger communities. Not many years 
ago two or three related families often lived in isolated camps 
throughout the year, but with the erection of United States 
Bureau of Indian Affairs schools in the larger settlements more 
and more families have gravitated toward these villages. The 
result has been for each man to trap over a smaller area, with 
a resulting decrease in catch per trapper. Most families cannot 
move to winter trapping camps now because they have school- 
age children who must attend school from September through 
May. The winter trapping pattern now prevalent is for the men 
to go out in the fall to their trapping camps and return peri- 
odically to their village. 

This routine is very unsatisfactory for all concerned. The 
women do not like to be left alone for extended periods of time. 
The men complain of missing their families and of performing 
women's work in camp, which takes them away from their 
trapping. Perhaps more serious is the fact that the boys can- 
not trap until they are out of school, and this deprives the family 


of needed income for several years. To solve this problem the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs might divide the school year into two 
parts so that the families could go as units to their winter trap- 
ping camps. Some of the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools have 
successfully adjusted the school year to accommodate spring 
muskrat trapping, but in terms of dollars the muskrat catch is 
insignificant compared to the mink catch. It would be far better 
for all concerned to make every effort to improve the mink 
catch. Considering the general complaint of the whites that the 
Eskimos are increasingly dependent upon welfare funds, it seems 
only logical to take a positive step in helping the Eskimos, who 
want to do more trapping, through a more flexible governmental 
policy in the schools. 

The problems mentioned above are only two among many 
that confront Eskimos and administrators alike. These are not 
insurmountable difficulties if both sides are willing to consider 
seriously the desires and needs of the other. The same would 
apply to other problems such as village health, village govern- 
ment, and resource utilization in general. The primary barrier 
seems to be that the Government agents are comparatively in- 
flexible in carrying out their obligations and are guided by policy 
statements that often show little awareness of village needs. The 
Eskimos, for their part, tend more and more to distrust admin- 
istrators and to be prejudiced against new programs before really 
understanding their aims. The conflicts that do exist are not 
explosive, but they are quite symptomatic of an unhealthy 
environment. Unquestionably various programs of education can 
offer partial solutions, but it is both the Eskimos and the admin- 
istrators who must be reeducated. They must both come to 
realize that they are viewing different sides of common problems 
wherein mutual understanding is necessary to arrive at accom- 
plishments fruitful for both. 


In spite of some good policies, and because of some bad ones, 
we still have an "Indian problem." And actions of the past 
century on the old frontier, that we regret, are taking place 

8 From "Indian Rights and Wrongs in Alaska," by Theodore B. Hetzel, associate 
professor of engineering, Haverford College, and a director of the Indian Rights Associ- 
ation. Indian Truth, 38:1-8. O. '61. Reprinted by permission. 


now on our last frontier, Alaska, in this time of the New Fron- 
tier. We must learn better how to deal with people of cultures 
that differ from ours for the improvement of our relations both 
within our own borders and with our world neighbors. . . . 

Who Really Owns Alaska? 

By the treaty of cession in 1867 Russia sold to the United 
States not just the sovereignty over Alaska, but the title to the 
land itself. The legal definition of the Federal Government 5 s 
title to the land is set forth in the Supreme Court's decision in 
the Tee Hit Ton case which holds that the natives have no firm 
title to land except as granted by Congress. 

The treaty of cession provided that the members of the* 
civilized native tribes should be protected in the free enjoyment 
of their property. 

The Act of 1884 establishing a civil government in Alaska 

That the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed 
in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now 
claimed by them, but the terms under which such persons may acquire 
title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress. . . . 

Some protection for the land claims of Alaskan natives was 
written into the Statehood Act but even now, nearly a century 
after purchasing Alaska, Congress has not acted to establish 
land titles for natives on the basis of their possessory rights. 

To the casual observer and even to most of the natives there 
appears to be more than enough land for the present population, 
so that the natives give little thought to the subject. 

This apparent abundance of land is far from a true picture of 
the actual situation. Demands for land by the Atomic Energy 
Commission, the various branches of the Department of De- 
fense, homesteaders, oil and gas producers, mining interests and 
the state itself, are already causing the loss to natives of land 
areas to which they are entitled and which are essential to 
their economic well-being. This situation grows daily less favor- 
able to the natives. Early action by Congress to reverse this 
direction is essential. 

Because of the provision in the Statehood Act for the new 
state to select over 100 million acres of land to help meet its 


expenses of operation, the state automatically becomes an ag- 
gressive competitor to deprive the natives of land which they 
need and which is rightfully theirs. They cannot look to the 
state to protect their land rights. 

Ever since early territorial days the Indian population of 
Alaska has been persuaded that any landholding as reservations 
or by a^group for a community enterprise would prevent them 
from enjoying equality, nondiscrimination and full citizenship 
rights. This has been continued by promoters of the state. Com- 
bined with the failure of Congress to provide for the settle- 
ment of their land claims this has resulted in most natives be- 
coming economically on a level with the poorest, propertyless 
cheechako (name applied to newcomers) . 

Native villages are protected against seizure, but in villages 
that have been surveyed it is possible for a competent native 
to obtain unrestricted title to his land and to sell it regardless 
of the effect upon the economy of the native community. A 
special provision permits a native to obtain title to five acres in 
one piece. Five acres of tundra is even more pitiful than 160 
acres of the Great Plains. It cannot support its owner who has 
always used extensive areas in different places at different times 
of year for fishing, trapping and hunting different animals. Many 
of these traditional hunting areas have been taken from the 
natives' control by the numerous reservations of the Defense 
Department, the AEC, Wild Life Refuges, the state, mining, gas 
and oil producers, etc. 

Even those natives of southeastern Alaska, who live princi- 
pally by fishing, need the security of landownership to protect 
their bases of operations, and their right to hunt where their 
ancestors hunted. As a Tlingit Indian in Hoonah told me <e We 
used to get fish in the creeks, but now we have to pay for a 
permit even to get one fish. We used to go to Glacier Bay for 
seals you need seal oil when you eat dried fishbut we are 
not allowed to go there now." 

Those Indians of the interior of Alaska whose livelihood, both 
subsistence and cash income, has always depended upon hunting 
and trapping should have set aside for their exclusive use the 
areas of land that have always been their fields of operation. 
They have over many years developed practices and methods in 
taking game that both meet their needs and provide for the 


conservation of the game. New roads and the airplane make it 
possible for sportsmen and outside trappers and hunters to move 
in, take the game and destroy this source of native food. 

Shades of the buffalo! As one native said, "Whites have 
taken over good trapping land where we used to trap. They tell 
us to keep off." . . . 

In the far north large areas of grazing land are needed for 
the reindeer and caribou, important sources of food and clothing 
for the Eskimo. 

It is equally important that these long-time native residents 
of Alaska share in the income from the gas, oil and mineral 
lands that are being developed. As has been the practice in other 
states, the natives should have the landowner's share of income 
from these products from areas which traditionally have been in 
their possession. 

At Barrow where natural gas is produced and piped right 
through the village to supply the Federal installations arrange- 
ments should be made so that the natives can secure natural 
gas for their needs. As it is now they must pay from seventy 
cents to a dollar a gallon for their fuel. 

Schools and Schooling 

There is general agreement that education is desirable, and 
that it is a key to the solution of other problems that beset 
Alaskan natives. New schools are being built in many places, 
more teachers employed, teacher qualifications are being raised, 
and burdens of extraneous duties, such as power plant and 
radio operator, postmaster, magistrate, hotel-keeper, etc. formerly 
placed upon teachers are being lightened. All this is good. 

Native children, mostly from non-English-speaking homes 
and isolated communities, do not accomplish as much academic- 
ally in eight years, in spite of high intelligence, as is expected in 
the "Lower 48." Their expectations and needs are different too. 
Yet the academic program is based on typical American stand- 
ards. In the beginning years the pupils make normal progress, 
but when class material becomes based on an acquaintance with 
the greater complexities of modern affairs the children drop be- 
hind their nonnative contemporaries. And they drop out. 


The Bureau of Indian Affairs conducted a valuable experi- 
ment this past summer to prepare above- average eighth grade 
graduates for successful high school careers. Perhaps even more 
needed is a similar program for those of only average ability, 
or a whole year added to the high school program to bring 
achievement up to regular norms and to prepare students 
better for college. 

School program and policy are determined in Washington 
and Juneau. The reasons for them are often not understood 
either by the students or their parents, and some things which 
are of importance to the natives are not accepted by the educa- 
tion administrators. Many natives depend on boats and outboard 
motors. But there is no instruction in boatmaking or out- 
board repair, except for some shop work at Mt Edgecumbe, 
which work is being decreased. There is talk of a vocational 
high school at Nome. A good idea, but the wrong place. 

It is not surprising that boys drop out of school when they do 
not realize the importance of their studies, and their studies 
do not include some things they think important. And their 
parents are not consulted about curriculum. The Bureau should 
establish local advisory school boards and give them increasing 
responsibility for decisions affecting their children's education. 
Most natives would not be able to assume all the responsibili- 
ties of school boards at once, but they should be brought into 
school activities through parent-teacher organizations and into 
administrative problems wherever possible. We do not approve 
of the former practice of "kidnapping" Indian children to edu- 
cate them. We should be sure that we do not now have other 
practices opposed by the parents. 

Hunger Knows No Season 

An Alaskan problem that received national attention this past 
summer is that of the taking of migratory birds which are 
protected by international treaties. The needs and usages of 
Eskimos in killing ducks and some other birds when they were 
in Alaska were probably unknown or overlooked by those who 
wrote the treaties. The treaties should be revised for the benefit 
of those who depend on these birds for subsistence, for there is 


no question but that many Eskimos need this food, and also that 
the number of birds taken by them is no significant threat to 
the conservation of the species. It would be simpler, however, to 
solve the problem by a more understanding enforcement of the 
regulations. The treaty with Mexico protects those ducks which 
live temporarily in Mexico, therefore as no eider ducks get that 
far south they need not be included in those listed for protection. 
The treaty with Canada states "that special protection shall be 
given . . . the eider duck ... by such other regulations as may 
be deemed appropriate." When the eider were threatened with 
extinction that meant more strict protection of course, but now 
that that is not the case the propriety of appropriate regulation 
is established. 

Natives Endangered by "Project Chariot" 

Another problem for the Eskimos is the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission's Project Chariot, a proposal to experiment with the use 
of atomic energy to blast a huge excavation. Scientists have been 
studying the geology, flora, fauna and weather of the area. The 
natives of the vicinity have been told that there will be no ill 
effects due to radiation and fallout. However, if one could be so 
sure of the results it would not be necessary to conduct the 
experiment, and the assurances are suspect because some findings 
and recommendations have been published in advance of the 
gathering of scientific data basic to the recommendations. 
Political rather than scientific factors seem to be in control of 
Project Chariot 

Many problems illustrate the confusion of information and 
misinformation in people's minds: the problems accompanying 
transition from a hunting to a cash economy, how to get better 
housing, the effect of airplanes on wildlife, the effect of weirs 
on salmon spawning, legal problems relating to fish traps and 
fishing and hunting rights, and the social effects of large military 
bases adjacent to small native villages. 

Relatively well-informed people hold conflicting opinions and 
are sure of contradictory data. This lack of reliable information 
is a clear indication that Indian-interest organizations should 
give more attention to Alaska, its people and their problems. 



By virtue of its limited size and geographic insularity, Hawaii 
lends itself peculiarly to a unitary and simplified representation 
of its social structure. Both the popular and scientific literature 
abound with references to Hawaii as "the melting pot of the 
Pacific" a land where the associations among the numerous 
ethnic stocks which make up its population are described in 
terms as idyllic and equable as the climate and the tropical 
landscape. Indeed, some observers with a scientific tradition have 
seriously contended that the contentious peoples of more rigorous 
climes may become transformed into mild-mannered Polynesians 
simply by living for some years within the beneficent physical 
environment of the Islands. 

Most social scientists, while critical of so simple a theory of 
social causation, are nevertheless prone to accept the conception 
of Hawaii as affording a congenial social climate for free and 
friendly association among peoples of sharply contrasted cultures 
and racial origins. A prevailing impression of Hawaii, par- 
ticularly among journalists but also among social scientists, has 
varied only slightly from the account given by William Allen 
White, following his experience in the Islands during the initial 
conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Writing under 
the title "The Last of the Magic Isles," White described Hawaii 
as the one place in all the world where "the so-called race 
problem is [not] acute," where the eyes of the dark-skinned men 
of the "brown, black, and the yellow [races] of the earth and 
their mulattoes are [not] looking with suspicion and rage and 
bitterness into the blue eyes of the men of the northern ruling 
race of today," where "race antipathies have disappeared because 
. . . race injustices are not in vogue." 

Few of the numerous observers of the social scene in Hawaii 
go much further than the Kansas journalist in interpreting the 
beneficent race relations as the consequence of the favorable 
economic situation in which competition is lacking between the 
"benevolent white oligarchy" and the imported "races from Asia 
who live upon the lower standard." Thirty years later no less 

4 From article by Andrew W. Lind, senior professor of sociology, University of 
Hawaii In Race Relations: Problems and Theory, Essays in Honor or Robert E. Park, 
edited by Titsuichi Masuoka and Preston Valien. University of North Carolina Press. 
Chapel Hill. '61. p 58-71. Reprinted by permission. 


a figure than the President of the United States [Dwight D. 
Elsenhower] utilized much the same idealized conception of the 
Islands as a major argument in his State of the Union Address 
for urging statehood for Hawaii: 

In the Hawaiian Islands, East meets West. To the Islands, Asia 
and Europe and the Western Hemisphere, all the continents, have 
contributed their peoples and their cultures to display a unique example 
of a community that is a successful laboratory in human brotherhood. 

Statehood, supported by the repeatedly expressed desire of the 
Islands' people and by our traditions, would be a shining example of 
the American way to the entire earth. 

Even the scholarly and intensive studies by Romanzo Adams, 
pioneer sociologist in the Islands, have been commonly inter- 
preted as supporting a similarly enchanting view of race relations 
in which there is "the almost complete absence of race prejudice 
and sustained social tolerance and cultural reciprocity." Actually, 
Adams' analysis of Hawaiian race relations does not lend itself 
to such a simplified conception. He did not fail to recognize the 
existence, particularly among the newly arrived immigrants and 
in the military circles, of strong traditions adverse to free asso- 
ciation and equality of opportunity across racial lines, but he did 
insist that, owing to a series of historical accidents in Hawaii, 
there has evolved a prevailing set of practices (rituals) and a 
corresponding set of doctrines to symbolize racial equality. . . . 

According to Adams, it was the deep rooting of racial equality 
in the everyday practices of the people, reinforced by a long 
tradition and a corresponding doctrine . . . that such conduct 
is right and proper which gives to Hawaii its unique and un- 
orthodox quality as a race relations frontier. Individuals or even 
small splinter groups may be out of sympathy with the racial 
code and may even privately resist it, but they cannot afford to 
express these sentiments openly, and eventually even their inner 
sentiments, according to Adams, come to conform with the social 

Other competent students have focused attention specifically 
upon the dual or divided character of Island race relations, being 
less impressed by the dominant code of racial equality than by 
the equally pronounced tendency to depart from the code. 
Everett Stonequist, following two years of observation in Hawaii, 
characterized the Island system of race relations as containing "a 


pattern of equality and friendliness and a pattern of inequality 
and prejudice." Evidence of the latter, according to Stonequist, 
is found particularly in the racial hierarchy on Hawaii's planta- 
tions, in the economic and cultural dominance and the social 
exclusiveness of the white population, and in the ethnocentrism 
of the various immigrant groups. 

This point of view, which has been shared by numerous other 
observers, suggests a shirting and unstable equilibrium in which 
the nonwhite groups especially are subject to varying degrees of 
racial segregation and prejudice. Indeed, it gives to Hawaii's 
race relations a character not essentially different from that 
which is commonly attributed to the continental United States. 
There is a professed code of racial equality on the one hand a 
public avowal that the individual shall be afforded opportunity 
and rewarded on the basis of his native ability and effort rather 
than on the accident of birth. The actual practice, on the other 
hand, may fall far short of the ideal. Hawaii's race relations, 
they contend, are essentially those of the "American dilemma" 
described by Gunnar Myrdal the continuing conflict between 
the values inherent in the "American creed" where the American 
thinks, talks, and acts under the influence of high national and 
Christian precepts, and, on the other hand, the valuations of 
specific planes of individual and group living, where personal 
and local interests; economic, social, and sexual jealousies; . . . 
group prejudice . . . dominate his outlook. 

A psychologist from South Africa, after several weeks of 
observation in Hawaii and prodded, no doubt, by the frequent 
references to "Hawaii's racial harmony," went so far as to state 
to a group of fellow scientists that "the only real difference 
between race relations in South Africa and in Hawaii is that in 
South Africa we practice racial segregation and inequality and 
readily admit it whereas in Hawaii you also discriminate but 
your code won't permit you to admit it." There is much the same 
implication of unconscious hypocrisy among Islanders in the 
widely quoted comment of Ray Stannard Baker in 1911: "I have 
rarely visited any place where there was as much charity and 
as little democracy as in Hawaii." Although he was alluding at 
the time primarily to the benevolent paternalism which he found 
so marked in the Islands, he was no less impressed by the 
barriers existing to "keep the Oriental in his place." 


Robert E. Park [whose pioneer work as a sociologist advanced 
the study of race relations] appears to have been the first to 
suggest a pluralistic approach to the study of race ^ relations in 
Hawaii. In his introduction to Romanzo Adams' Interracial 
Marriage in Hawaii, Park restates a conception which had 
occurred to him at least a decade earlier following some observa- 
tions in the Caribbean, where he was greatly impressed by the 
wide variation in the race relations found in the different islands. 
The possibility of similar differences among various Hawaiian 
islands with respect to race relations was proposed to Adams as 
a basic idea for the study and appears in the introduction as 

If ... we may observe civilization [here] as it evolves under some- 
thing like laboratory conditions, this is due, in part at least, to the 
advantages of the islands for the purpose of sociological investigation. . . . 
All kinds of things can and do happen on islands. . . . Every island 
(of the group) is likely to enclose within the limits of its coastline not 
merely another community but a different world, each with its own 
local traditions and way of life, and each more or less self-sufficing and 
complete in itself. . . . Insularity, in short, encourages individuality and 
in this sense, it is true that one cannot tell what will happen on an 

Hawaii's small islands, with their restricted and "neighborly" 
populations, yield better returns for the students of race relations, 
according to Park, because there is "little of that mystery and 
sentiment in regard to race which so readily springs up in more 
populous communities where local and occupational segregation 
so easily becomes the basis for the formation of hereditary 
classes or castes." . . . 

Traders and Missionaries 

It is against the background of Hawaii's underlying economy 
that the evolving pattern of Island race relations may be most 
effectively portrayed. Trade was, in fact, the atmosphere in 
which contacts between the native Polynesians and the whites 
were initiated, and the subsequent shifts in the racial complexion 
of the region have been largely in response to the changing 
demands of the Island economy. One need not accept the theory 
of economic determinism to recognize in Hawaii, as elsewhere, 


the dynamic influence of free land and of open economic oppor- 
tunity in stimulating immigration and the mingling of diverse 
peoples. It is within the shadow, so to speak, of two competing 
economic institutions the trading center and the plantation 
that Hawaii's pattern of race relations has chiefly taken form. 

Trade is a ... relationship in which, theoretically at least, 
both participants enjoy equal advantage. The very conception of 
exchange implies that both parties find the relationship to then- 
advantage and that either party may withdraw and thus term- 
inate the relationship if he feels that his best interests are not 
being served. . . . 

Certainly the Yankee trader who soon followed the explorer, 
drove hard bargains with the natives and gave little thought for 
their welfare. That the Hawaiian was frequently victimized in 
these transactions there can be little doubt; but it was a game 
which required two to play, and its success was dependent upon 
the satisfaction of both of the parties. Moreover, the purely 
exploitative aspects of the relationship could not continue if the 
Westerners expected to conduct business and to live permanently 
in the Islands. The natives were not likely to continue doing 
business with a trader who was known to be a scoundrel. . . . 

The Christian missionaries have frequently been credited with 
introducing the tradition of equality into the race relations of 
Hawaii, and unquestionably they did much to stabilize this trend 
and to give it doctrinal support. What is perhaps not commonly 
recognized is that the missionaries came to Hawaii in the wake 
of and, to some degree, by the consent of the traders. Despite the 
acrimonious struggle for power between some of the traders and 
the missionaries, they actually had much in common and each 
drew support from the other. The missionaries, like the traders, 
were beholden to the native rulers for their presence and physical 
well-being in the Islands, and it would have been inconsistent 
with both their collective interests and their professed doctrine to 
discriminate actively against the natives. . . . 

It is the combined impact of the forces emanating from the 
trading center on the one hand and the Protestant mission on 
the other which is largely responsible for Hawaii's much-vaunted 
equalitarian race relations. The trader, with his dominant con- 
cern for profit, and the missionary, with his zeal for winning 
souls, were by their vocations compelled to treat the native 


Hawaiians with deference and respect. They could not afford to 
give public expression in the Islands to any feelings which they 
might privately cherish that the Hawaiians were destined by 
their biological heritage to remain at their stone-age level of 
culture. And, as Romanzo Adams has insisted, people tend to 
bring their attitudes into harmony with the behavior that they 
believe to be expedient. In the field of race relations, people 
finally come to have the sentiments of respect that their conduct 
symbolizes. It is therefore a matter of primary importance to 
the permanent pattern of race relations in Hawaii that the trader 
and the missionary arrived before (not after) the planter and the 
soldier. The lapse of some seventy years following Western 
discovery of Hawaii before the plantation emerged as a dominant 
Factor in the life of the Islands allowed ample time for the 
earlier equalitarian pattern of race relations to become firmly 
established, and at least another fifty years elapsed before any 
considerable military population arrived to offer further 

Planters and Soldiers 

The combined effect of certain major social changes in Hawaii 
before 1850 the dramatic decline in native population from an 
estimated 300,000 in 1778 to 71,000 in 1853, the consequent 
releasing of extensive native lands for other purposes, the ac- 
ceptance by the Hawaiian monarchy of the rights of private 
ownership and the alienation of land, and the passing of Hawaii 
as a major center for the whaling industry of the Pacific these 
all served to create the necessary conditions for the rise of the 
plantation frontier in the Islands. The critical significance of the 
plantation as affecting race relations arises out of its political 
functions and role. In order to assure the necessary supply of 
responsible and tractable labor, in a region where such workers 
are distinctly at a premium, the planter is compelled to assume 
the part of a political overlord, and the plantation acquires many 
of the characteristics of a semi-independent state. 

In Hawaii, as on other plantation frontiers, the natives had 
little incentive to accept the onerous conditions of labor on the 
emerging agricultural estates. Their simple economic needs could 
readily be satisfied without submitting to the long arduous hours 
of work under a foreign taskmaster. Since slavery, the device so 


commonly utilized In other plantation regions, could not be 
employed, the planters were obliged to import the bulk of their 
workers from overseas and to hold their labor supply as best 
they could by a highly stratified social system based upon race. 
Commencing in 1852 and continuing for nearly a hundred years, 
the European and American promoters of Hawaii's sugar and 
pineapple plantations recruited some 400,000 workers from such 
widely separated regions as China, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, 
Spain, Portugal, Germany, Norway, Puerto Rico, and the islands 
of the south and central Pacific. Although the total demand for 
plantation workers in Hawaii could readily have been supplied 
entirely from a single region relatively close at hand, such as 
China, better control, particularly during the early history of 
the plantation, could be obtained by dividing the labor force 
among sharply contrasted ethnic stocks and by maintaining 
distinct physical and social barriers between them. 

Thus it is that most of the groups known as races in Hawaii 
have been drawn to these Islands to supply plantation labor, and 
the very conception of race as a divisive category is largely a 
function of the plantation system. Before the middle of the last 
century the only major distinctions were between the natives and 
the haole, with minor recognition of the national groupings 
within the larger category of foreigners. Chinese plantation 
workers, following their arrival in considerable numbers during 
the 1850's and 1860's, came to stand out as a special group with 
a status inferior to that of the haole group with whom they had 
previously been classified, and beginning in 1866 the Chinese 
were recognized as a separate racial group in the census of 
Hawaii. Similarly, the Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Nor- 
wegian immigrant laborers, although sharing a common European 
and Christian heritage with the American and British planters of 
the Islands, have consistently been treated as distinct racial groups 
and have so been classified in the official census as long as their 
place within the Island economy was primarily at the level of 
plantation labor. . . . 

With the economic maturation of plantation agriculture, 
following World War I, there occurred a reversal in the con- 
ditions of the Hawaiian labor market such that unskilled workers, 
far from being in great demand, are now excessively available. 
The planter no longer needs to conserve or coerce his workers, 


since the supply is more than ample, and the pressure to use 
race as a control device is consequently largely removed. The 
traditions of the past, however, die hard, and the plantation still 
remains a symbol of racial, as well as class stratification. . . . 

The loss of Hawaiian political independence and the ac- 
ceptance of territorial status under the United States [in 1898], 
although by no means attributable exclusively to plantation 
pressures, symbolized to the masses a further intrenchment of the 
plantation pattern of race relations. To the native Hawaiians, 
particularly, annexation reflected a serious loss of prestige, and 
it was generally interpreted as a public confirmation of the 
dominant position of the haole, a fact which had hitherto been 
publicly recognized only within the plantation. 

Actually the transfer of citizenship from the Hawaiian Re- 
public to the United States had mixed consequences with respect 
to race relations in the Islands. On the one hand, the earlier 
property qualifications for certain elective offices and the exclu- 
sion of Orientals from citizenship under the constitution of the 
Republic were eliminated. The American Bill of Rights was 
extended to all residents of the territory regardless of racial 
ancestry. All persons born within the Islands were for the first 
time granted the rights of citizenship. On the other hand, 
disparities between legal rights and practices also became in- 
creasingly apparent as a considerable number of Americans from 
the mainland, bearing racial attitudes which were alien to 
Hawaii, flocked into the newly acquired territory. It is sig- 
nificant, however, that most of these malihinis (newcomers) 
either absorbed "the unorthodox race doctrines" of Hawaii, par- 
ticularly if they lived in the urban centers, or they returned to 
the States. A sizable number of mainlanders could not become 
accustomed to the racial practices which they encountered, and 
it is probable that their decision to return to the States was 
motivated in part by a feeling of disgust with Hawaii's racial 

A new dimension in Hawaiian race relations was introduced 
shortly after annexation with the arrival of increasing numbers 
of military personnel. The soldier, whose exercise of power figures 
so prominently in establishing the superior position of the white 
man on so many other colonial frontiers, did not seriously figure 
in the Hawaiian situation until well after a century of contact 


with the Western world. The first permanent garrison of Amer- 
ican troops was established on Oahu shortly after the transfer 
of sovereignty in August 1898, but it was not until after World 
War I that Hawaii emerged as the major American military 
outpost in the Pacific. Hawaii's rapid rise as a military frontier 
is symbolized in the expanding number of persons returned by 
the census as "soldiers, sailors, and marines/' or in "national 
defense," from 1,608 in 1910 to 29,057 in 1940, of whom the 
overwhelming majority were mainlanders. The climax was 
reached after "Pearl Harbor" when the military personnel com- 
pletely outnumbered the adult civilian population of the Islands. 

The significance of the military population, which Romanzo 
Adams in the early thirties apparently regarded as the most 
serious threat to "Hawaii's race mores," is derived, however, less 
from the numbers involved than from their isolation and political 
influence. Like the plantations, the military posts had very much 
the character of independent states where "traditions of a racial 
caste system" could be maintained without interference from the 
local community. The distinctions of rank, inherent in the 
military structure, could readily be translated into a racial 
hierarchy, particularly when those in command had been dis- 
proportionately drawn from "sections of the country in which 
doctrines of racial inequality are definitely professed and 
practiced." . . . 

The conflict in viewpoint with regard to race relations be- 
tween the military and civilian elements of the Island population 
might not have constituted any serious problem, if the isolation 
between them had been less complete. To a very considerable 
degree, the military population has lived in a world of its own, 
with a minimum of communication with, or understanding of 
life among, the civilians. Limitations of recreational opportu- 
nities on the posts, however, have forced the large number of 
womanless enlisted men, particularly, to seek contacts with the 
civilian community under conditions which have not been favor- 
able to understanding on either side. . . . 

Under the pressure of national crises and also in response to 
the mounting economic expenditures of the military establish- 
ments in Hawaii, Islanders have sometimes compromised with 
their local code of racial equality. This was perhaps most notice- 
able during World War II with respect to the treatment of the 


Negro, the latest and least familiar, and, hence, the least ac- 
ceptable, of the immigrant arrivals. Even within the urban 
centers, the Negro has encountered some discrimination during 
and following the war, although not to the extent of irreparably 
damaging the existing pattern of race relations. The service 
personnel, on the other hand, have also adapted themselves to 
the Island expectations, even to the point of choosing wives from 
among the non-Caucasian residents and remaining permanently 
in Hawaii. 

Last to develop among the distinctive types of social situations 
affecting race relations in Hawaii is what may properly be 
called the tourist frontier. Running back as far as 1784 with the 
publication of Captain Cook's Voyages of Discovery, the 
Hawaiian Islands have held a particular fascination to Western- 
ers as one of the last remaining outposts of romanticism in a 
world of increasing mechanization and standardization. Unques- 
tionably the prospect of escape from the burdens and responsibil- 
ities of a routinized existence at home and the anticipation of a 
South Seas idyll led many of the first traders to Hawaii, but the 
full effect of such an appeal did not express itself until well 
into the twentieth century. It has required the facilities of 
modern luxury liners, both by sea and air, and the latest pro- 
motion techniques of travel agencies and tourist bureaus to 
exploit fully the propaganda appeal of Mark Twain's panegyric 
on Hawaii of the last century: 

... the loveliest fleet of islands that lies anchored in any ocean. . . . 
No alien land in all the world has any deep strong charm for me, but 
that one. No other land could so longingly and beseechingly haunt me, 
sleeping and waking, through half a lifetime as that one has done. 

The influx each year of thousands of visitors in search of 
adventure and stimulation, as well as temporary release from the 
moral restrictions of their home communities, is bound to have 
notable consequences upon the race relations of the Islands. The 
tourist shares with the military personnel the racial attitudes of 
another community frequently opposed to those prevailing in 
Hawaii, at least those prevailing in the urban centers and as 
one investing his surplus in the Islands he is sometimes less 
inhibited than the military in expressing these attitudes freely. 
Theoretically, therefore, the tourists afford a sort of pipeline for 


the introduction of mainland conceptions of race relations, and 
the Islanders economically dependent upon their patronage, 
notably taxi drivers and hotel operators, tend to "play up" to 
these imported ideas. 

Practically, however, the tourists come into close contact with 
at least that portion of the local community serving their needs 
and hence they are better situated than the military to undergo 
some change in attitude. To a degree at least, the tourist goes 
abroad to leam, and many become converted to the official 
Hawaiian doctrine of racial equality. In search of new experience 
and release from the prohibitions of his home community, the 
tourist may also discard his former racial prejudices with con- 
siderable ease, at least while he is away from home. The most 
sweeping and enthusiastic endorsements of Hawaiian race rela- 
tions and the most glowing accounts of the non-Caucasian 
population have come from visitors who only shortly before had 
arrived in the Islands, prepared to find fault with the unorthodox 
human relationships they encountered. 

Race Relations in Flux 

Contrary, therefore, to the common impressions, race relations 
in Hawaii are manifestly involved and fluid in character. How- 
ever distinct the frontier situations just delineated may once have 
been, now virtually every part of the Islands is affected to some 
degree by all of these differing forces. . . . Not only has the 
equalitarian atmosphere of the commercial centers extended into 
the military and plantation areas, . . . but the urban centers, in 
turn, have felt the impact of military and . . . plantation forces. 
Traders and missionaries have become planters, and planters have 
become traders or have retired in the cities, with a corresponding 
transfer of influence from one area to the other. . . . 

The phenomenal conversion of the Hawaiian people to 
Christianity within a single generation has given rise to the 
mistaken impression that the missionary frontier has long since 
disappeared and that the Christian impact upon race relations 
is unitary and unchanged. The subsequent introduction of addi- 
tional population elements created new fields for converts and 
attracted to the Islands a host of different religious movements, 
with varying racial emphases, to engage in the process. During 
the latter half of the nineteenth century, the Catholic, Episcopal, 


Methodist, and Mormon missions tended to cairy on much the 
same tradition of race relations as the Congregationd pioneers, 
stressing the value of all peoples in the sight of God The 
Catholics were in general less puritanical than their Mormon 
and Protestant colleagues in their approach to deviations ^ tram 
Western morals encountered among the native and immigrant 
groups In contrast to the Protestant and Mormon . ^ . [atti- 
tudes] the Catholic church has been somewhat more inclusive 
in its appeal and has encouraged marriage across race lines 
insofar as both parties are Catholics. The introduction of a wide 
range of the emotionally expressive Christian sects since 1930 
has served to extend the Protestant influence somewhat into the 
lower classes and to promote fraternization across ethnic lines. 
At the same time, the older Protestant denominations are gradu- 
ally breaking away from the earlier practice of "racial churches 
made necessary by the separate languages of the immigrant 

The most striking transformations with respect to race re- 
lations have probably occurred with the maturation of the plan- 
tations of the Islands. ... The disposition to keep the immi- 
grant races in "their place" as laborers has greatly diminished. 
Promotion in economic and social status within the plantation 
occurs increasingly on the basis of individual merit and ability 
rather than of race, and residential segregation according to race, 
once essential for effective labor control, is also gradually de- 
clining. Strong resistance to the advanced education of the chil- 
dren of plantation workers lest they acquire "white-collar 5 
tastes and expectations was evident among Hawaiian plantation 
interests until well along in the I930's, but such barriers to edu- 
cational advancement, insofar as they may still exist in the more 
remote portions of the Islands, have been largely negated by the 
spread of public and private high schools and colleges. 

A wholly intrusive and unexpected element in the breakdown 
of racial barriers on the plantations since World War II is the 
sudden spread of unionization. Sometimes described as Hawaii's 
major revolution, surpassing in social significance the revolution 
of 1893 in which Queen Liliuokalani was dethroned, the estab- 
lishment of the ILWU as the bargaining agent for workers in 
both the sugar and pineapple plantations brought about a degree 
of collaboration and fraternization across race lines which had 


never previously been thought possible. Where previously the 
efforts of labor to secure recognition had been confined to the 
limited and sporadic demonstrations by workers of a single 
ethnic group, the unionized workers were forced into active co- 
operation without regard for ethnic background. The first Island- 
wide strike on the sugar plantations in 1946 and the first large- 
scale strike in the pineapple industry in 1947 were also the 
initial experience of large numbers of Island workers engaging 
In a common cause with persons outside their own racial com- 
munity, and although deeply-rooted prejudices could not be im- 
mediately eliminated, a new tradition of far-reaching significance 
had become well established. 

The integration of plantation workers across racial lines has, 
however, probably widened the barrier between the predomi- 
nantly haole employing group, on the one hand, and the com- 
bined non-haole workers, on the other. The phenomenal in- 
crease in unionization in Hawaii, from a region which was 
formerly among the least organized in the United States to one 
which is now among the most highly organized, has also borne 
unsuspected consequences in terms of a greater disposition to 
give free expression to any irritations on the part of the workers. 
Insofar as the workers have been chiefly of the immigrant races 
and their grievances have been directed largely toward the large 
haole employers, this freer expression has seemed to carry a racial 
animus. The more outspoken manifestations of resentments and 
irritations, particularly toward the haoles since World War II, 
far from reflecting an intensification of racial feelings, actually 
testifies to the removal of restraints and a more normal inter- 
change across race lines. Where once the haole, especially on 
the plantations, lived in a world somewhat apart from the non- 
haole workers and thereby protected from their privately held 
resentments, he is now within easier range of normal human 
Intercourse, critical as well as friendly. 


Like most of the other island areas of the Pacific which have 
experienced the penetration of Western commerce and trading 
practices, In Hawaii the positions of power and of substantial re- 

B From "Hawaii in the Race Relations Continuum of the Pacific," by Andrew W. 
Land, senior professor of sociology, University of Hawaii. Social Process. 25:12-14. 
'6I-'62. Reprinted by permission. 


wards tended first to be concentrated wholly in the hands of 
promoters from Europe and America. Only after some years of 
apprenticeship under the new regime could persons of ethnic 
groups previously lacking such a tradition be expected to occupy 
positions of prestige and influence. There is, however, consider- 
able variation among regions in the readiness with which the 
less privileged groups are given access to the means of qualifying 
for the preferred positions. In this latter respect, owing to ... 
[special] circumstances . . . Hawaii has been better situated 
than any of the other island areas to afford an equal opportunity 
to all of its various ethnic groups. By 1950, for example, the 
earlier disabilities of the immigrant labor groups had been so 
far overcome as to place the Chinese, most of whose parents or 
grandparents arrived in Hawaii a generation or two earlier as 
lowly plantation laborers, in a higher average position with re- 
spect to annual income than any other ethnic group. Moreover, 
in a substantial number of the preferred occupations, the men 
and women of Oriental ancestry by 1950 had clearly outstripped 
their earlier mentors of Caucasian ancestry. At the same time we 
must recognize that not all of the immigrant groups have availed 
themselves of the opportunities for economic and social advance- 
ment to the same degree and that the more recently arrived im- 
migrant groups necessarily operate at a disadvantage as compared 
to the earlier arrivals. 

One of the further significant developments of the past 
decade, reflecting the changing commercial and business rela- 
tionships among the various ethnic groups of Hawaii, has been 
the acceptance of non-Caucasians as officials and directors of 
the larger and once sacrosanct corporations of the Big Five, 
Hawaii's interlocking organization of major economic enter- 
prises. The participation of Island-born men of Oriental an- 
cestry in the direction of the plantations on which their fathers 
served as unskilled laborers a generation ago still seems incredible 
to observers of the racial scene in most other areas of the Pacific. 
Increasingly during the past decade the promoters of new busi- 
ness and industrial enterprises expanding from continental 
United States have found it advantageous to seek out competent 
young men of Oriental ancestry for key positions, recognizing 
that their clientele is drawn from a population which is more 
than half of Oriental ancestry. 


As recently as twenty years ago, in the competition between 
two men of equal technical training for a preferred business posi- 
tion, one of Oriental ancestry and the other a Caucasian, the 
latter commonly would enjoy the advantage. Today that situa- 
tion is frequently, although by no means always, reversed, and 
if anyone, it is the Caucasian rather than the Oriental who corn- 
plains of being discriminated against. 

Similarly, the political control of Hawaii has progressively 
lost the racial coloration it possessed a half century ago when a 
small minority of Hawaiian and Caucasian elite dominated the 
scene. Notably since World War II, the ethnic composition of 
both the elected and appointed officials in the government of 
the Islands has tended more and more to approximate that of 
the entire population of Hawaii, although here also the groups 
with the least experience or inclination to engage in politics 
are still underrepresented but not unrepresented. By way of 
summary and without going into detail, it can be accurately 
stated that in no other Pacific islands have any immigrant labor 
groups advanced in economic and social status so rapidly and so 
far within a comparable period of time. 

The most obvious index of a diminishing concern for race and 
of an equalitarian relationship across ethnic lines is, of course, 
that of interracial marriage and here also Hawaii has progressed 
further along the continuum than any of its Pacific island 
neighbors, for which accurate records are available. Some ap- 
preciation of the degree to which this process has already oc- 
curred and of its inevitable impact upon the future quality of 
Hawaii's population and social structure may be derived from 
the fact that somewhat more than a third of all marriages occur 
across ethnic lines and a slightly lower ratio of all children bom 
in Hawaii are of mixed ethnic ancestry. As a consequence, it 
becomes only a question of time certainly less than another 
generation before Hawaii's population will have become so 
extensively interbred as to make the retention of the present 
system of racial categories a useless pretense. In most other 
island areas of the Pacific this same process is also taking place, 
but at a much slower pace, judging by such data as are available. 



To examine the government of Alaska and Hawaii is to be 
impressed, once again, with the similarities between these totally 
different pieces of earth. It would, of course, be expected that 
new states, in drafting their constitutions, should choose the 
best from the experience of the forty-eight that came before. 
Happily, such is the case. Alaska and Hawaii have modeled 
themselves after the best notably the much praised state con- 
stitutions of New Jersey and Missouri. The constitutions of the 
new states are both about 10,000 words in length. They are both 
"progressive" in their concern for safeguarding human rights 
and liberties. And they both feature a strong executive, investing 
their governors with the opportunity for imaginative and dy- 
namic rule. 

Yet as states their political tests are just beginning. Can 
Alaska afford statehood? Can she bear the costs of self-govern- 
ment in her vast expanse of territory? Can Hawaii, with its 
simplified yet highly centralized tradition of government, effec- 
tively and fairly administer the realm of her differing peoples 
and interests? 

There is an old tradition in American government which 
holds that the government which is closest to the people is the 
best. Such a consideration played an important role in the cam- 
paign for statehood in both Alaska and Hawaii. Whatever the 
costs and risks might be, the people of the new states, in over- 
whelming numbers, were determined to assume for themselves 
the burdens and responsibilities that the American Federal sys- 
tem reserves to the states of the Union. Now that those burdens 
and responsibilities are theirs, the people of Alaska and Hawaii 
may be older and wiser, but they do not as yet seem to be any 
sadder. For balanced against the burdens of statehood have come 
new opportunities for action, not only at the state level, where 
capable, energetic men are at the helm, but at the Federal level, 


too, where Alaska and Hawaii now each have two senators and 
one representative to press their interests and causes. 

The first two articles in this section deal with government 
in Alaska, the last three with government in Hawaii. In the 
first, Alaska's constitution, devised in an academic atmosphere 
before statehood and its resulting political pressures was actu- 
ally won, is outlined and analyzed. In the second article Alaska's 
Senator Ernest Gruening explains and enumerates some of the 
political benefits that have come to Alaska after four years 
as a state. 

In the fourth article Hawaii's constitution, with its strong 
executive and its centralized structure, is analyzed by two lead- 
ing political scientists. Next a specialist in American govern- 
ment for the Library of Congress examines the centralized na- 
ture of Hawaiian rule and the problems it may involve. Finally, 
in the last article, a journalist describes some of the advantages 
of Hawaii's political system in relation to that state's economy. 


Alaska's new state constitution according to House Report 
No. 624 of June 25, 1957, which accompanied the Act of Admis- 
sion of July 7, 1958, has been declared by political scientists and 
public administrators "to be one of the finest ever prepared." 
This modern constitution was found by Congress "to be repub- 
lican in form and in conformity with the Constitution of the 
United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and is hereby accepted, ratified, and confirmed." 

Perhaps the outstanding characteristic of Alaska's up-to-date 
constitution is its provision for an extremely strong executive 
branch of government. 

Deeply sensitive of their lack of home rule and of their self- 
labeled status as "second class citizens," the sturdy frontier peo- 
ple of the new state made sure that residual and active sovereign 
power rested with themselves, exercisable through their governor 
in whom they vested great power. In Alaska's state government 

1 Prom "The Forty-ninth State Sets an Example/* by John S. Hellenthal, a membesr 
of the Alaska bar practicing in Anchorage, and a member of Alaska's constitutional 
convention. American Bar Association Journal. 44:1147-50. D. *58. Reprinted by pec- 


there will be no buck-passing or shirking of responsibility by the 

In November of 1955, fifty-five delegates met for seventy-live 
days at the University of Alaska at College, near Fairbanks, 
Alaska, and drafted the constitution. The voters of Alaska ap- 
proved it on April 24, 1956, by better than a two-to-one 
majority. ... 

Possibly it was fortuitous that at the time the delegates met, 
congressional approval of statehood seemed very remote. Had 
the delegates met after passage of the Act of Congress they would 
undoubtedly have been motivated by political considerations to 
a greater degree. As it occurred, however, the delegates were able 
to deliberate in a relatively pure academic atmosphere. . . . 

Why is Alaska's constitution regarded as one o! the finest? 

The basic structure of the new constitution follows the gov- 
ernment of typical American states; there are many important 
features based upon past experience of the forty-eight states. 

Judicial System 

The Council of State Governments asserts "the judicial article 
embodies many of the concepts long advocated for good court 
administration." Some of these are: 

(a) The progressive features of the Missouri, California, New 
Jersey and American Bar Association plans for selecting judges; 

(b) The supreme court will make the rules for all the courts, 
subject to the authority of the legislature by two-thirds vote to 
amend the rules of practice and procedure; 

(c) The chief justice of the supreme court, with an adminis- 
trative director serving at his pleasure, will administer the entire 
unified judicial system; 

(d) The governor will appoint the judges from names sub- 
mitted by a seven-man judicial council consisting of three lay 
members appointed by him, three lawyer members named by 
Alaska's integrated bar, and the chief justice; 

(e) Judges desiring to remain in office, must, three years after 
their initial appointment, submit their names to the voters of 
their jurisdiction for approval or rejection; thereafter, superior 
court judges must do so every six years and supreme court justices 
every ten years. 


Dr. Sheldon Elliott, of New York University Law School, 
Director of the Institute of Judicial Administration, New York, 
and a member of the House of Delegates of the American Bar 
Association, who had assisted New Jersey in its constitutional 
revision, helped in the drafting of the provisions relating to the 
judicial branch. The Alaska integrated bar approved the draft 
and offered many practical suggestions. 

It is noteworthy that Alaska's method of judicial selection, 
patterned after the Missouri plan, met with little or no objection 
from the bar or the lay public. Under territorial government, 
Alaska's district judges were appointed for terms of four years 
by the President, often being chosen from nonresidents. One 
would excuse long-suffering Alaskans, crying for full local gov- 
ernment, had they vigorously opposed any nonelective plan. 

A Strong Executive Branch 

Perhaps none of the states possesses a stronger executive 
branch than the Alaska state constitution provides. There are 
no other independently elected officers, and the governor of 
Alaska will be held wholly responsible for the conduct of state 
administration during his four-year term. 

Unhappy territorial experiences, resulting from the fact that 
the smallest details of government were administered by absentee 
bureaucrats in Washington, undoubtedly influenced this Hamil- 
tonian swing of the pendulum. A strong executive may be the 
trend in modern state government, as evidenced by the 1947 
New Jersey constitution, which creates an executive department 
very similar to Alaska's. 

Unique features of constitutional provisions relating to the 
executive portion of the state government are: 

(a) The secretary of state succeeds to the governor's office 
in case of vacancy and is nominated at the primary election like 
other candidates. At the general election, however, a vote for 
the governor is considered a vote for the secretary of state of the 
same party running jointly with him. This insures that both 
governor and secretary of state will be of the same party. At 
Alaska's primary of August 26, 1958, there was some criticism 
of this innovation because of the possibility that successful can- 
didates for governor and secretary, though of the same party, 


might be of very divergent political philosophies. Some believe 
the constitution will ultimately be amended to provide that the 
governor shall appoint the secretary of state. 

(b) Executive departments are limited to twenty, in order to 
avoid waste, duplication, and an executive hedgerow. New Jer- 
sey's 1947 constitution contains a similar provision. 

(c) The governor, subject to being overruled by the legisla- 
ture, can reorganize departments and transfer functions among 

(d) Individuals appointed (and removable) by the gover- 
nor, but confirmed by the legislature, will head principal depart- 
ments. Boards or commissions may head departments, if the 
legislature so provides, but their principal executive officer must 
be approved by the governor although the board may be author- 
ized by the legislature to appoint him. 

A Truly Representative Legislature 

Territorial legislatures were not representative of the people 
and of the diverse areas of Alaska, with the result that relatively 
uninhabited regions exercised disproportionate power and fre- 
quently enabled a determined minority to throttle desirable 

The membership of the legislature consisting of twenty sena- 
tors and forty representatives was carefully apportioned in both 
houses according to population and geography, with emphasis 
upon area in the Senate and upon population in the House. 
Small House and Senate districts assure that the less populated 
communities as well as the large cities are represented. 

Some modern and progressive features of the article dealing 
with the legislature are: 

(a) Automatic reapportionment every ten years by the gov- 
ernor acting on the advice of an independent board. 

(b) Annual legislative meetings of unspecified length. 

(c) Annual salaries for legislators. 

(d) Veto or reduction of items in appropriation bills is pos- 
sible. A three-fourths or two-thirds vote of the legislature, meet- 
ing in pint session, depending on whether a revenue and appro- 
priation measure or other bill is involved, is required to override 
a governor's veto. 


(e) It is mandatory that a legislative council be established 
to meet between legislative sessions. 

(f) A constitutional provision requires legislative regulation 
of the practice of lobbying. 

Many Modern Constitutional Provisions 

Voting age lowered. Nineteen-year-olds are permitted to vote. 
High school trained students with elementary civics and govern- 
ment fresh in mind should be well suited to enjoy the full rights 
of their citizenship. Many believe that youthful voting will tend 
to curb delinquency problems by instilling a sense of respon- 
sibility following high school, rather than requiring young men 
and women to mark time until they are twenty-one years of age. 

Up-to-date declaration of rights. Alaska's constitution accents 
human rights that have been stressed in current times. Thus 
"No person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil or political 
right because of race, color, creed or national origin," and "the 
right of all persons to fair and just treatment in the course of 
legislative and executive investigations shall not be infringed." 

Martial law. The martial law provision is unique, namely 
"martial law shall not continue for longer than twenty days 
without the approval of a majority of the members of the legis- 
lature in joint session." 

Finance. Earmarked funds are done away with, rigid tax and 
debt limits are abolished. No state debt for capital improvements 
can be contracted without approval by the state electorate. The 
governor must submit to the legislature a detailed annual budget; 
the legislature shall appoint an auditor to conduct legislatively 
prescribed postaudits, 

Merit system. The legislature must establish a system under 
which the merit principle will govern the employment of persons 
by the state. 

New approach to local government. Evils of county govern- 
ments with unchangeable boundaries, many elected officials, and 
overlapping tax authority are sought to be avoided by the creation 
of "borough" governments corresponding to counties, and to exist 
together with city governments as the only two classes of local 
government. Organized boroughs will be created as needed. 
Provision for home rule in cities and boroughs is made. Service 
areas to provide special and limited services in organized and un- 


organized boroughs may be established. The constitution is 
sufficiently elastic to permit retention of traditional forms ot local 
government, should the legislature so desire; cities, however, must 
be extended maximum home rule by virtue of a self-executing 
provision of the constitution. _...-, 

This approach is largely without precedent. The aim is de- 
sirable "to provide for maximum local self-government with a 
minimum of local government units, and to prevent duplication 
of tax-levying jurisdictions." Enlightened, inspired and unselfish 
legislation will be needed to accomplish this end within the 
constitutional framework. 

Natural resources. Provisions dealing with the abundant 
natural resources of the new state are advanced and sound. 
Maximum use is balanced with continued availability tor hzture 
generations. Disposals of rights in state lands must be preceded 
by public notice. Mining laws shall follow the pattern of Fed- 
eral laws and shall be based upon discovery and appropriation of 
mineral resources. 

Where the forty-eight states struggled to protect their resources 
after statehood, Alaska made provision for their protection prior 
to admission. 

Amendments. Amendments to the new constitution can be 
proposed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature to 
be effective after approval of the proposed amendment by a ma- 
jority of the votes cast at the next state-wide election. 

Constitutional convention. Provision is made for a constitu- 
tional convention every ten years. After a period of ten years 
passes without a constitutional convention having been held, the 
matter of whether or not such a convention shall be held must be 
placed before the voters; if the majority votes in the affirmative, 
a convention is held. The constitution drawn at this convention 
must be ratified by the people. Legislative inaction cannot ham- 
string constitutional reform. 

Initiative Referendum. The constitution provides for both 
initiative and referendum. 

Many Proposals Rejected After Delate 

Specifically rejected constitutional proposals were those for 
a unicameral legislature; elective attorney general, treasurer and 
other state officials; provision for "complete" separation of church 


and state; elected judges; independent boards and agencies; bi- 
ennial meetings of the legislature; permitting legislators to be 
elected from districts other than their district of residence, as in 
England; overriding veto by vote of each house, rather than at 
joint session; prohibition against payment of public funds for 
"indirect" benefit of religious or private schools. 

Some proposals were rejected as being legislative in nature, 
and many others on more general grounds, e.g. right-to-work 
provisions; prohibitions against gambling, and wiretapping or 

Lessons Learned at Constitutional Convention 

Many states presently seek constitutional revision; many need 
a thoroughgoing revamping of their outdated constitutions. The 
recent experience of Alaska can benefit both groups. 

At their convention Alaska's constitutional delegates dis- 

(a) Fifty or sixty delegates can adequately handle the prob- 
lem of constitutional revision at a unicameral meeting. 

(b) Committees should be established at the outset. Alaska 
created these: Judiciary, Legislative, Executive, Natural Resources, 
Local Government, Apportionment and Suffrage, Bill of Rights* 
Finance, Administrative, and Style and Drafting. The com- 
mittees should hold hearings and report their conclusions in the 
form of drafts of constitutional articles to the convention floor. 

(c) The meeting should be limited in duration. Ninety days 
is sufficient time. 

(d) A handbook should be prepared well in advance, con- 
trasting and comparing constitutional provisions of the forty-nine 
states on various subjects. 

(e) Full use should be made of professional bodies and of 
individuals devoted to study of political science. 

(f) The session should recess for about thirty days at the 
half-way point to hold public hearings and to explore popular 

(g) The question of unicameralism should be buried at the 
outset of the session. 


(fa.) Certain Illustrative committee hearings should be tele- 
vised, as Alaska did, to generate the spirit of constitutional re- 

form, _ 

(i) A secluded university affords ideal environment and at- 
mosphere for constitutional deliberation. 

During the more than two years following the adoption of 
Alaska's constitution by Its people and the approval of the Act 
of Admission, no serious criticism of the constitution has been 
made by the many powerful foes of Alaska statehood^ either 
during the violent debates in Alaska prior to the elections of 
April 1956 and August 1958, or during the congressional debates 
on statehood In 1957 and 1958. The constitution withstood the 
test of debate. Whether or not a modern and efficient state will 
result must be determined in ensuing years by the statesmanship 
of the legislators and their success in carrying out the intent of 
the constitution framers. 


Nearly four years as a state have brought to Alaska tangible 
results not possible during the long years the forty-ninth state 
was a territory. 

Alaska entered the Union on a footing politically equal to its 
sister states but economically neglected through years of terri- 
torial rule. Efforts during both the Eighty-sixth and Eighty- 
seventh Congresses were necessarily directed toward correcting 
this economic Inequality. 

Federal Government departments and agencies, Informed and 
prodded for the first time by elected, voting congressional repre- 
sentatives of the state of Alaska, have increased their programing 
for the state by millions of dollars. 

Part of the task of the Alaska congressional delegation during 
these years has been to make certain that existing and proposed 
Federal programs were tailored to suit Alaska's special needs. 

Another part of the task has been to take decisive action with 
Federal agencies to protect Alaska's Interests against encroach- 
ment, such as our protests against Russian and Japanese fishing 

*From **Four Years of Unprecedented Achievement the Greatest Progress in 
Alaskan History"; extension of remarks in the United States Senate by Senator Ernest 
Graening (Democrat, Alaska), October 13, 1962, Congressional Record. 108:A7806-I2. 
O. 19, *62. 


Many advances have been made in the economic develop- 
ment of Alaska, some of major significance to the future of our 
state, others of less import but significant nevertheless in clear- 
ing away obstructions which would hinder future growth. 

A Highway Program for Alaska 

One of the most important bills for Alaska approved by the 
Eighty-seventh Congress is Senate Joint Resolution 137, now 
a part of the Federal Aid Highway Act which takes the im- 
portant long-awaited first step toward positive planning and de- 
velopment of a road system within our state. . . . 

During my testimony on behalf of Senate Joint Resolution 
137 I compared the cost of visits to three large cities in three 
states by a family of four, mother, father, and two children, 
ages 10 and 14. The states compared were Oklahoma, Michigan., 
and Alaska. The Oklahomans followed roads to and from 
Beaver City to Oklahoma City, a distance of 450 miles and the 
gasoline cost was $7.50. The Michiganites made a round trip 
from Alpena to Detroit, 464 miles, for the same amount. The 
Alaskans' round trip to Anchorage and back to Bethel cost $462 
via air highway since no road exists. 

Two New Hydroelectric Projects for Alaska 

The Eighty-seventh Congress has shown its interest in the 
development of Alaska's great natural resources by its authoriza- 
tion of the construction of two new hydroelectric power projects: 

First. The Crater-Long Lakes division of the Snettisham 
project near Juneau. 

Second. The Bradley Lake project on the Kenai Peninsula. . . . 

Advancement for Rampart 

When the Development & Resources Corporation of New 
York presented its final report on the proposed Rampart [Dam] 
project to the Corps of Engineers it said the market for power 
from the project would create a busy and prosperous Alaska 
which would "almost certainly become a substantial producer of 
electric-furnace pig iron and steel, ferroalloys, copper, magnesium,. 


chlorine and caustic soda, calcium carbide, abrasives, nitrogen, 
phosphorous titanium and other products." The study is part 
of intensive investigations now under way on the proposed proj- 
ect for a $1% billion dam which will have installed capacity 
of approximately 5 million kilowatts and will produce energy at 
a cost of 2 mills at the bus-bar and not to exceed 3 mills per 
kilowatt-hour at tidewater. . 

Rampart Dam would be the biggest power producer in the 
free world. Better than $900,000 will have been used for Ram- 
part project studies by the close of fiscal year 1963 on June 30, 
1962. The total estimated Federal cost of the survey is $1.3 
million which the Alaska congressional delegation hopes can 
be completed in fiscal year 1964. , . . 

The Development & Resources report makes clear that even 
the tremendous power to be generated by Rampart will be in- 
sufficient for Alaska's needs and that a whole Yukon River de- 
velopment will be required. In pursuance of this conclusion, I 
requested and obtained authorization for the Corps of Engineers 
to investigate the Woodchopper site upstream from Rampart. . . . 

Area Redevelopment Act 

How to relieve the problem of chronic unemployment which 
affected many areas of the nation was a major item confronting 
members of the Eighty-seventh Congress. Unemployment stood 
at more than 5 million workers. In Alaska the percentage of 
unemployed was high in most parts of the state. . . . 

The Area Redevelopment Act became Public Law 87-27 on 
May 1 3 1961. The act is administered through the Area Re- 
development Administration in the United States Department 
of Commerce. ARA brought together a number of Federal Gov- 
ernment departments and agencies with resources which could 
be focused on the problem of helping create new jobs. It helps 
areas diversify and rebuild their economic base. It creates new 
employment opportunities through its positive approach, and 
astute administration of the program has furthered its develop- 

As this report was being prepared, nine ARA projects, with 
a monetary value of $1,580,962, have been approved for Alaska. 
The four traimng programs and the one public facilities loan 


will provide jobs for 595 persons, and will help correct the situ- 
ation which existed early in January 196 1, when the state un- 
employment rate was 18.7 per cent . . . 

Alaska's interest in the ARA program has drawn commenda- 
tion by ARA spokesmen. The forty-ninth state is one of two 
in the Union to present an over- all economic development pro- 
gram. This was done in September of 1962 and the program Is 
now under consideration. . . . 

Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 

With rapid technological changes occurring in industry, the 
needs of labor change and the skills become outmoded. The 
Manpower Development and Training Act provides a positive 
approach for meeting this challenge. . . . 

The program is suited to Alaska and its training and em- 
ployment needs. . . . Eighty-five per cent of the Alaska labor 
needs are in the nonindustrial areas and people must be trained 
to fill the needs of the labor market Such needs include the 
development of the oil industry, the expansion of the highway 
program and the extension of the agriculture potential, 

Telephone and Air Transportation Taxes 

Alaskans, dependent on air transportation for much of their 
travel, will benefit from congressional action which I supported. 
The transportation tax on air travel drops from 10 to 5 per 
cent on November 15, 1962. The air transportation tax ends 
June 30, 1963 

The tax on long distance telephone calls is now on a year- 
to-year extension basis. The current extension expires June 30, 
1963. The tax on local calls was removed July 1, 1960. 


The admission of a state to the Union is a matter of such 
rarity that the occasion always arouses real interest as to the 
nature and provisions of the constitution of the new arrival. 

"From "The Hawaiian Constitution: A Structure for Good Government,** by Paul 
C. Bartholomew, professor of political science, University of Notre Dame, and Robert 
M. Kamins, professor of economics, University of Hawaii. American Bar Association 
Journal 45:1145-8+. N. '59. Reprinted by permission. 


The addition of Hawaii to round out our half hundred states 
is no exception, even though the constitution has actually been 
in existence since 1950. . . . 

The people of Hawaii had not waited for Congress to pass 
an enabling act before proceeding to the framing of a constitu- 
tion for the proposed state. In 1950 a convention of elected 
delegates met in Honolulu and proceeded to draw up a consti- 
tution which was signed at lolani Palace on July 22. This was 
submitted to the voters of Hawaii and approved by a three-to- 
one majority on November 7, 1950. The action of Congress in 
adopting the Statehood Act of 1959 involved approval of this 
constitution. . . . 

Hawaii's State Constitution 

All state constitutions have some statement of the rights 
of persons under the state's jurisdiction. In the Hawaiian con- 
stitution this statement (Article I) is called the "Bill of Rights," 
and it generally follows the Bill of Rights of the Federal Con- 
stitution. Here is set forth a recognition of popular sovereignty, 
the equality of men and their mutual rights and duties. Specific 
guarantees include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, 
religion, speech, press, assembly, petition, due process, grand jury, 
trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases, proper accusation 
of crime, witnesses, counsel, habeas corpus, the subordination of 
the military to civil power, and the right to bear arms through 
a militia. There are specific guarantees against unreasonable 
search and seizure, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, exces- 
sive bail or fines, cruel or unusual punishment, quartering of 
soldiers or militiamen and imprisonment for debt. There is a 
final statement to take care of the "principle of exclusion" that 
"the enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed 
to impair or deny others retained by the people." 

These are the basic rights that are found in all state con- 
stitutions. However, other states have additional basic guarantees 
covering the right of privacy, the location of the power to sus- 
pend laws, the prohibition of ex post facto laws and the out- 
lawing of slavery. On the other hand there are a number of 
specific guarantees in the Hawaiian constitution that are not 
included in all of the other state constitutions, such as freedom 


of the press. The influence of the Federal constitutional model 
is here obvious. 

Article n concerns suffrage and elections. Twenty years is 
set as the minimum age for voting. This contrasts with Alaska's 
nineteen years and the eighteen-year minimum of Georgia and 
Kentucky. All other states have a twenty-one-year limit One 
year is set as the period of legal residence in Hawaii. In odier 
states, this ranges from six months to two years. United States 
citizenship, registration, and a literacy test of ability to speak, 
read and write English or Hawaiian are added voting qualifica- 
tions. The first of these is found in all states while registration 
and a literacy test are qualifications in about a third of the states. 

The date of general elections follows the pattern of all 0* 
the other states except Alaska the Tuesday after the first Mon- 
day in November of even-numbered years. The legislature is 
specifically empowered to prescribe methods of voting, including 
absentee voting, with the provision that voting is to be secret. 
The legislature is also charged with determining the procedure 
for deciding disputed elections but this determination is to be in 
a court of competent Jurisdiction. As is common in other states, 
persons of unsound mind or those convicted of a felony are 
barred from voting unless pardoned and restored to their civil 

The Legislature 

Article III is the legislative article. The Legislature (the col- 
lective name for the two houses) is to consist of a Senate of 
twenty-five members and a House of Representatives of fifty-one 
members. Only Delaware and Nevada have a smaller total 
number of legislators except, of course, Nebraska's single house 
of forty-three. One might have expected that the example set 
by the Nebraska unicameral experiment would have been fol- 
lowed, but Nebraska remains the only state with a one-house 
legislature. Members of the Senate and the House are to be 
elected from districts. Six senatorial districts are set by the con- 
stitution, together with the number of senators to be elected 
from each. The eighteen representative districts and the number 
of members to be chosen from each are temporarily set in the 
constitution. Reapportiomnent every ten years is to be by the 
governor by the method of equal proportion the mathematical 


formula used in the apportionment of the lower house of Con- 
gress among four basic areas in the Islands. Apportionment 
is to be based on the number of voters registered at the last 
preceding general election. 

This provision requiring the governor to reapportion is 
unique among the states. In most states this is an exclusive 
power of the legislature, but California, Illinois, Michigan, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and Washington provide alter- 
native procedures in case the legislature neglects to reapportion. 
Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri and Ohio reapportion by means of 
boards, of which the governor is a member in Arkansas and 
Ohio, but only in Hawaii is the governor himself authorized to 
perform the function exclusively. The Hawaiian supreme court 
is empowered to require "by mandamus or otherwise'* that the 
governor perform this duty, if he fails to do it, or to correct 
errors he may have made in the process. 

Terms of representatives and senators are two and four years 
respectively, which is the arrangement in thirty states including 
Alaska. There is provision for overlapping terms with half of the 
Senate membership chosen at each succeeding election. The 
legislature is authorized to provide for the filling of vacancies 
and to set the compensation of members. Qualifications for mem- 
bership include an age minimum of twenty-five years for the 
House and thirty for "die Senate, residence in the state for at least 
three years, and the fulfillment of all requirements for voting 
in the district from which the candidate seeks to be elected. The 
usual legislative immunities are extended to members. 

Sessions of the legislature are to be held annually, those in 
the odd-numbered years are to be known as "general sessions" 
and those in the even-numbered years are to be known as "budget 
sessions." At the latter the only business eligible for considera- 
tion and enactment is to be the following: revenue bills, appro- 
priation bills, emergency measures (requiring a two-thirds vote 
of all members of each house), bills calling elections, bills pro- 
posing constitutional amendments, and measures relating to the 
impeachment or removal of officers. 

General sessions are to be limited to sixty days and budget 
sessions to thirty days. The governor may call special sessions 
which are to be limited to thirty days. All of these periods ex- 
clude Sundays and holidays. Regular sessions are set for the 


third Wednesday in February. Only Alabama (May), Florida 
(April) and Louisiana (May) have later meeting dates. Almost 
all other state legislatures meet in January. Until changed by 
law, the constitution provides that legislative salaries are to be 
$2,500 per each general session, $1,500 per each budget session 
and $750 per each special session. 

Unusual provisions governing legislative procedure include 
the discharge of a committee from further consideration of a bill 
twenty days after that bill has been referred to the committee. 
Such recall of a bill is to be by a two-thirds vote of the entire 
membership of that house. The vote on the final passage of a 
bill in all cases is to be by a majority of the total membership 
of that house and is to be by roll call. 

The governor has the item veto as applied to appropriation 
bills, as is true in most states. He has ten days to consider bills 
normally, Sundays and holidays excluded. Only Georgia and 
Alaska permit a longer period of consideration. The Hawaii con- 
stitution tries to avoid pocket vetoes. Borrowing an innovation 
from New Jersey's 1947 constitution, Hawaii's new basic law 
authorizes each legislature to convene on the forty-fifth day after 
its adjournment sine die for the sole purpose of considering bills 
vetoed by the governor. Vetoes can be overridden only by vote 
of two thirds of the full membership of each house. However, 
if the legislature fails to convene after its ordinary session, bills 
returned by the governor do not become law. 

Impeachment procedure is entirely normal by comparison 
with other states. Charges are to be brought in the House of 
Representatives and trial is to be in the Senate with a two-thirds 
vote of the members of the Senate required for conviction. 

The Governor 

Article IV is the executive article. The governor is chosen by 
plurality vote. This is true of all states except Georgia, Maine, 
Vermont and Mississippi, where a majority vote is required. In 
these states, if no candidate receives a majority of the votes, 
either the two houses in joint session (Georgia and Vermont) or 
the lower house of the legislature (Maine and Mississippi) makes 
the selection. 


The term of office of the governor of Hawaii is set at four 
years, as in thirty states, including Alaska. There is no limit on 
the number of consecutive terms he may serve as there is in 
twenty-three other states, also including Alaska. Qualifications 
include a minimum age of thirty-five years, United States citizen- 
ship for twenty years and qualifying as a voter. The governor is 
ineligible for any other state or Federal office during his term. 
The constitution provides that his annual salary shall be at least 
$18,000. The 1959 territorial legislature increased it to $25,000 
per annum. 

As in all but eleven states, there is a lieutenant governor. He 
is chosen at the same time, in the same manner, with the same 
qualifications, and for the same term as the governor, but may 
be of the opposite political party. . . . 

The powers of the governor are of the usual sort found in the 
other states to faithfully execute the laws, to serve as com- 
mander-in-chief of "the aimed forces of the state," to recommend 
measures to the legislature, and to grant reprieves, commutations 
and pardons. One unusual feature is the authorization to the 
governor to appoint an administrative director "to serve at his 
pleasure." No duties are specified for this office, although this 
may develop somewhat along the lines of the chief administrative 
officer (CAO) being established in more and more cities. No 
other state appears to have an officer comparable to Hawaii's 
administrative director. . . . 

Administrative departments are to be established by law but 
are limited to twenty "principal" departments. The head of each 
department is to be appointed by the governor with the consent 
of the Senate and subject to removal by the same procedure. . . . 

An unusual feature of this constitution (and that of Alaska 
also) is limiting the number of elective executive offices to those 
of the governor and lieutenant governor. Most state constitutions 
"freeze" a large number of offices such as auditor, treasurer, 
attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction in the 
constitution, all to be chosen by popular vote. This reduces the 
power of both the legislature and the governor in those states, 
particularly the governor, and opens the way for intra-admin- 
istrative feuding. This has been avoided by the framers of the 
Hawaiian constitution. 


The Judiciary 

The last of the "big three" divisions of governmental power, 
the judiciary, is established by Article V. A supreme court and 
circuit courts are established by the constitution, but the creation 
of inferior courts is left for the legislature. (There are now 
twenty-nine district magistrates' courts). The Supreme Court is 
to consist of five justices including the chief justice. These are 
to be named by the governor and Senate for seven-year terms. 
All judges must have been admitted to the bar of the Hawaiian 
Supreme Court for at least ten years prior to appointment. Man- 
datory retirement is set at seventy years of age. Removal of 
judges is to be by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each 
house of the legislature sitting in joint session. Provision is made 
for retirement of a judge for incapacity. This is to be done by the 
governor upon the recommendation of an investigatory board. . . . 

It is regrettable that the framers of the Hawaiian constitution 
did not adopt some variation of the plan used in California and 
Missouri for the choice of judges, as did Alaska. [See the first 
article in this section, above.] However, it is good that the 
example of the thirty-six states that use popular election for the 
choice of judges was not followed. 

Taxation and Finance 

Artice VI deals with taxation and finance. There is to be no 
discriminatory taxation of property owned by citizens of the 
United States who reside outside the state. All bonds and other 
instruments of indebtedness of a political subdivision must be 
authorized by its governing body. The state debt limit is set at 
an absolute $60 million. More than half of the fifty states have 
some fixed sum limitation on outstanding unpaid indebtedness. 
In Hawaii this debt limit can be exceeded when authorized by 
a two-thirds vote of the total membership of each house of the 
legislature. However, even with such authorization, the amount 
of general obligation bonds outstanding cannot exceed a sum 
equal to 15 per cent of the total assessed valuation of real 
property in the state. "Instruments of indebtedness" issued for 
certain specified purposes, and to meet emergencies caused by 
disaster or act of God, may be issued without regard to the debt 
limit. The same is true if these instruments of indebtedness are 


issued in anticipation of revenue collections or to meet "casual 
deficits or failures of revenue" and are payable within one 
year. . . . 

The executive type of budget is provided. All but six states use 
this arrangement which establishes the governor as the budget- 
making authority. He is further given the duty of submitting 
bills simultaneously with the budget to provide for any added 
revenues or borrowing that may be necessary to meet the proposed 
expenditures. This is a practical attempt to eliminate unbalanced 
budgets. The legislature is to appoint an auditor by majority 
vote of the members of the legislature in joint session. The 
auditor has the duty to post-audit and to report to the governor 
and the legislature. 

Local Government 

Article VII is the local government article. The legislature is 
required to create counties as the major political subdivision of 
the state and may establish other subdivisions. This is the usual 
pattern among the various states. Only Louisiana with parishes 
and Alaska with boroughs depart from this pattern. Each sub- 
division is granted self-government, but this is potentially nulli- 
fied by the further provision that the exercise of this self-govern- 
ment is to be done "within such limits and under such procedures 
as may be prescribed by law." 

Article VHI makes it the obligation of the legislature to 
provide for: (1) the protection and promotion of the public 
health, (2) the treatment, rehabilitation and care of mentally 
and physically handicapped persons, (3) assistance for persons 
unable to live in a manner compatible with decency and health, 
(4) slum clearance and low income housing, and (5) the 
conservation of natural beauty spots as well as those of historic 
or cultural interest. 

Article IX directs the establishment of a public school system 
free from sectarian control as well as a university (the University 
of Hawaii), libraries, and other institutions. Segregation on the 
basis of race, religion or ancestry is specifically forbidden. The 
wall of separation between church and state in this area is 
guaranteed by the proviso that public funds shall not be used 
"for the support or benefit of any sectarian or private educational 
institution." . . . 


Natural Resources 

Article X is concerned with the conservation of natural re- 
sources. The legislature is ordered to vest the powers of 
management and disposition of these natural resources agri- 
cultural, fish, mineral, forest, water, land, game, and others in 
one or more executive boards or commissions. All fisheries of the 
sea waters are to be free to the public, subject to vested rights. 
Any possibility of preferential treatment for private interests with 
respect to natural resources is guarded against by the requirement 
that the state power over public lands is to be exercised only by 
general laws except where public agencies are involved. Further, 
the public lands are to be used for the development of farm and 
home ownership on as widespread a basis as possible. This last 
provision reflects the historic background of landownership in 
the Islands where leaseholding arrangements have been prevalent 
and (on Oahu) land available for ownership in fee has been in 
chronically short supply. 

The following Article (XI) continues the consideration of 
home lands by adopting as a law of the state the Federal 
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. The treatment of the 
Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (under which residential and 
homesteading properties are supplied at an annual rental of one 
dollar to persons of at least half-Polynesian ancestry) comprises 
a constitutional anomaly. The act admitting Hawaii to the 
Union provides that those sections of the Hawaiian Homes 
Commission Act which relate to its administration can be 
amended in the state constitution or by statute, but that other 
sections, including those dealing with funds, cannot be amended 
without the consent of the United States. No parallel restriction 
upon the self-government of an American state appears to have 
been imposed by Congress, and in the light of the determination 
of previous similar, but different, restrictions, the provision may 
be legally vulnerable. 

Miscellaneous Provisions 

Article XII guarantees to employees in private enterprise the 
right to organize and to bargain collectively. Those in public 
employment are extended the right to organize and to present to 
the government their grievances and proposals. 


The boundaries, the capital (Honolulu), and the state flag 
(the Hawaiian flag, modeled after the British) are established in 
Article XHL 

Article XTV contains general and miscellaneous provisions, 
some of which are unusual. The merit principle is adopted for 
public employment subject to law. Any public employees' retire- 
ment system is to be a contractual relationship not subject to 
diminution or impairment. Loyalty to Federal and state govern- 
ments is made a qualification for public employment and a 
constitutional oath is set forth. The "exclusion principle" is 
recognized with the provision that "the enumeration in this 
constitution of specified powers shall not be construed as limita- 
tions upon the power of the state to provide for the general 
welfare of the people." 

In Article XV are set forth the details of revision and amend- 
ment of the constitution. Two methods are provided, by con- 
vention and by the legislature. The periodic submission plan is 
adopted in the requirement that at least every ten years the 
question of calling a constitutional convention must be submitted 
to the electorate. The possibility that the Hawaiian legislature 
may neglect to do this is guarded against by providing that the 
lieutenant governor must certify the question of calling a 
convention if the legislature has failed to do so. The legislature 
may propose amendments by a two-thirds vote of each house at 
one session after the governor has received at least a ten-day 
written notice of the final form of the proposed amendment. 
Alternatively, amendments can be proposed by a majority vote 
of each house on the proposal at each of two successive sessions. 

Regardless of whether the amendment is proposed by con- 
vention or by the legislature, it is then submitted to a vote of 
the electorate at a general election. The proposition must secure 
a majority of all of the votes cast on the question and this 
favorable vote must also constitute at least 35 per cent of the 
total number of registered voters. . . . 

The final article (XVI) is the very necessary but transitory 
Schedule Article. This contains the details and the step-by-step 
procedure for putting the constitution into effect. . . . 


A "Good Structure" 

The Hawaii constitution is brief (11,400 words) and generally 
incorporates the better constitutional provisions of the other 
American states. Its drafters, however, did not completely avoid 
the trap of ^being overly specific in dealing with quantities. The 
state debt limit of $60 million, which seemed generous when the 
constitution was drafted nine years ago, is inadequate to the 
point of temporarily embarrassing the fiscal operation of the new 
state. The requirement that the lower house be reapportioned 
on or before June 1, 1959, proves to be ineffective, because the 
delay in achieving statehood left Hawaii without a state legisla- 
ture on that date. 

In addition, the Congress placed unusual limitations on 
Hawaii by requiring, in the act of admission, that basic amend- 
ments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act be approved by 
the United States in order to be effective. Despite these difficul- 
ties and shortcomings, however, the constitution of the state of 
Hawaii affords a good structure for the governance of the fiftieth 


There is abundant evidence that, in the transition from 
territorial status to statehood, no significant change was made or 
intended in the design of Hawaiian government. That govern- 
ment was, and still is, characterized by a high degree of central- 
ization, ranking with Delaware, North Carolina, and in some 
respects, Virginia and West Virginia as among the most highly 
centralized in the nation. For proof of this, one may turn to a 
number of sources of information . . . the state constitution, 
basic laws on the organizational structure of the state govern- 
ment, and significant comments found in published materials 
relating to state and local government 

The Hawaiian Constitution 

... In four articles at least, there are provisions bearing upon 
state-local relations and the problem of centralization. These are 

4 From Centralization of Government in Hawaii, Library of Congress Legislative 
Reference Service study, by W. Brooke Graves, specialist in American government of the 
Library of Congress, mimeo. Library of Congress. Washington 25, D.C. Mr. 30, '62. 
p 2-11, 18. 


Article VII on local government, and Articles VIII, IX and X 
which are concerned, respectively, with public health and welfare, 
education, and conservation and development of resources. 

In Article VII, the legislature is directed to create counties and 
authorized to create other political subdivisions, each of which 
"shall have and exercise such powers as shall be conferred under 
general laws." This statement in Section 1 is followed^ by a 
section granting home rule powers to political subdivisions "with- 
in such limits and under such provisions as may be prescribed 
by law." The concluding Section 5 provides that "this article 
shall not limit the power of the legislature to enact laws of 
statewide concern." There is nothing particularly unusual about 
these provisions, but there is about Section 3 which reads as 

The taxing power sliall be reserved to the State except so much 
thereof as may be delegated by the legislature to the political subdivi- 
sions, and the legislature shall have the power to apportion state 
revenues among the several political subdivisions. 

In this, it is obvious that a high degree of state control over 
what, in many jurisdictions, are regarded as local finances, has 
been retained by the state. 

These provisions on local government take on an added 
significance when viewed in relation to ... the historical back- 
ground. County government was established in Hawaii on 
January 1, 1906, after an earlier act of 1903 had been declared 
unconstitutional. . . . 

It appears that counties in Hawaii were created in part to 
satisfy the demands of the Congress at the turn of the century. 
It is reported that "certain factors in pre-territorial Hawaii prior 
to the organic act of 1900 indicated a desire for more centraliza- 
tion." Professor [Bruce B.] Mason summarized the situation as 

These factors were the physical topography, with the only suitable 
port being at Honolulu; the plantation system with its private govern- 
ment; the desire to keep control over the multitude of immigrants who 
came to work on the plantations; the dominance of the haoles (whites 
of North European origin); and the zeal of missionaries to Christianize 
the Islands. Added to these factors as the territory developed were 
Republican control, until challenged by the Democrats in the 1950's, 
and the disfranchisement of Orientals until 1952. 


Therefore, even though counties were created, they remained sub- 
servient to the central government to such an extent that Norman 
Heller characterized the situation in 1958 as follows; "Hawaii ... pre- 
sents ... an extreme of centralized administration probably unequaled 
in any state in the mainland." [National Civic Review. O. *59J 

As Hawaii moved from territorial status to statehood, its 
constitution and recent history seemed to promise somewhat more 
county home rule, although the constitution continued the state's 
control of health, education and welfare. In fact, the constitution 
is very specific on these matters, such phrases as "The State shall 
provide for," and "The State shall have power 55 occurring re- 
peatedly in Articles VIII, IX and X. Article VIH deals with 
public health and welfare, and specifically covers public health, 
care of the handicapped, public assistance, slum clearance, re- 
habilitation and housing, and public sightliness and good 
order. . . . 

At the time of the transition, Professor Meller felt that the 
counties were at the crossroads. The major functions noted were 
still territorial functions but the 1957 legislature, controlled by 
the Democrats, promised more home rule and gave the counties 
new taxing powers and more freedom from administrative super- 
vision. He regarded it as questionable whether Hawaiians would 
overturn more than fifty years' experience under centralized 
administration. Professor Mason thought that he saw in a 
provision in Article IX, calling for state-wide control over educa- 
tion under a board appointed by the governor from panels 
submitted by local school advisory councils, a possible clue to 
the future. 

Organizational Structure 

The organizational structure of Hawaiian government was 
largely a result of two influences, territorial experience and the 
then recent example of success in New Jersey with both con- 
stitutional revision and executive reorganization. The territorial 
experience conditioned the thinking of the constitutional con- 
vention, the people, and the legislature in favor of centralization, 
while the New Jersey experience made clear the methods by 
which their disposition to establish a strong executive and a 
highly centralized government could be realized. 


Hawaii followed New York and New Jersey, and the Model 
State Constitution as well, in limiting the number of executive 
departments to twenty. . . . 

While the departmental structure is of interest and pertinent 
to the present discussion, the guiding principles upon which the 
nature of the organizational structure was determined are of far 
greater importance. There are, as the Joint [Legislative Interim] 
Committee Report [to the Hawaii State Legislature, 1959] ob- 
serves, "several basic concepts which have been applied and 
tested over the years among the various national and state gov- 
ernments and which may be profitably used as guides in organ- 
izing the Hawaii state government. It is worthy of note that the 
framers of the Hawaii state constitution have explicitly or 
implicitly incorporated these concepts in the constitution." The 
concepts are: 

1. That executive authority should be commensurate with 

2. That all administrative agencies should be consolidated 
into a small number of departments organized by function. 

3. That the lines of authority should be clear. 

4. That departments headed by a single executive shall be 
the general rule. 

5. That the responsible line officers shall be given adequate 
staff to assist them in the performance of their responsibility. 

6. That organization is dynamic, and a minimum of obstacles 
should be placed upon the executive branch in its effort to carry 
out the public will as expressed in law. 

Significant Comment in the Literature on 
State and Local Government 

Because they are illustrative and relate to important govern- 
mental functions, comments here will be limited to the schools 
[and] land use. . . . 

Schools. During the past several years, former President James 
B. Conant of Harvard University has been engaged in a com- 
prehensive study of public elementary and secondary education 
in the United States. ... In considering the problem of organ- 


ization, he discusses the diversity and size of school districts in 
the American states. Placed ninth in the list of the ten largest 
school districts, as measured both in terms of total population 
and public school enrollment, stands the state of Hawaii which 
Dr. Conant characterizes as "the only truly state system in the 
nation. In Hawaii [he continues] there are no local districts or 
local school boards or superintendents; school revenues and ex- 
penditures are determined at the state level, as are curriculum 
matters and the hiring and placement of teachers." . . . One 
could scarcely wish for any more conclusive evidence of the 
highly centralized character of public education in Hawaii. 

Land use. One of the major problems confronting state 
governments at the present time involves the relations of the 
states with their municipalities and metropolitan areas. Among 
the more serious aspects of this problem is land use planning 
and zoning, safeguarding of open spaces, and the control of 
"urban sprawl." While other states dawdle over this problem, 
accomplishing little or taking no action at all, while the problem 
grows steadily worse, Hawaii during the 1961 legislative session 
took decisive action ... in this field of activity. The new legisla- 
tion is designed to prevent urban sprawl, to preserve open spaces 
and to protect high-value crop lands. No other state has moved 
... so far in the direction of state- wide planning and land use 
control. And obviously, this represents a high degree of centrali- 
zation in an area which, in other jurisdictions, appears still to be 
regarded as very largely a local matter. 

The new legislation will be administered by a State Land Use 
Commission which is authorized to set the boundaries and pre- 
scribe the use regulations for three major zoning districts urban, 
agricultural and conservation. The districts will include all land 
In the Islands. Within each district, the counties will continue 
their normal zoning procedures, limited only by the state-defined 
zones and their regulations. Subdivisions, apartments, shopping 
centers, and the like, will be permitted in the urban zone, but 
will be excluded from the other two districts. The National 
Municipal League reports that "it is generally believed that state 
zoning will prove successful in Hawaii, and that the simplified 
government only five counties and a highly centralized state 
government will be an important factor. 5 * . . . [Author's italics.] 


Hawaiian Government in the Decade of the Sixties 

. . . What is the outlook for the next decade? What things 
can or should be done to maintain a state government that is 
structurally equipped properly to perform its duties and that, at 
the same time, will be both responsive to the will of the people 
and responsible? . . . 

In the first place, no drastic or sweeping changes in existing 
arrangements are required. Both the state constitution and the 
governmental structure are relatively new. With possibly one 
exception, the question is, therefore, more one of maintaining 
what has already been established, and making changes or im- 
provements as need arises, rather than contemplating any 
far-reaching changes at the present time. . . . 

[One] problem to be considered ... is that of popular control 
of government This is always important in a democratic society, 
but is particularly so in the case of Hawaii because of the highly 
centralized system of government and the very strong executive 
branch established there. What Hawaii has done is generally in 
accord with the ideas that leading students of state government 
have been advocating for many years. 

This system (centralization plus a strong executive) does, 
however, create problems in the field of popular control, in a 
state and among a people dedicated to democratic ideals. What 
steps can or should be taken to insure that this government does 
not get out of hand, that it does remain both responsive to the 
will of the people and responsible to them? . . . Three possible 
procedures or devices . . . have been or are being used for this 
purpose in other jurisdictions: (1) state- wide citizen organization, 
(2) a commissioner of investigations; (3) a joint legislative 
committee on government operations. 


The forty-nine other states have good reason to be envious of 
the fiftieth state. 

Hawaii, in addition to its traditional boasts of unbeatable 
climate and tourist attractions, also lays claim to the most sim- 

5 From "Hawaii Is Termed Governmental Paradise," by Gene Smith, New York 
Times staff correspondent. New York Times. O. 16, '60. p 1+- Copyright by The 
New York Times. Reprinted by permission. 


plified and streamlined governmental and fiscal structure of any 
of the states. 

For example, the state Has only two levels of government 
the state and ... [five] counties. And the reorganization of the 
state government in 1959 reduced to eighteen the number of de- 
partments that rule. Prior to that there were 104 departments, 
boards and commissions. 

As Governor William F. Quinn explains it: 

The pace of economic change in Hawaii has been so rapid in 
recent years that any understanding of Hawaii's economy based on 
knowledge of five or ten years ago is largely outmoded. . . , 

Recent developments in Hawaii's state finances should be of real 
interest to the financial community. ... I doubt that any state can 
match Hawaii's record in the last year, which includes a general fund 
surplus equal to nearly 20 per cent of general fund tax revenues, a 
modest tax reduction, a significant reduction in the state's general obli- 
gation debt of 4*/2 Per cent and a capital improvement program of 
$16.3 million during the present fiscal year financed on a pay-as-you-go 

The transition from territorial status to statehood, according 
to Governor Quinn, has been accomplished with essentially no 
disruption of governmental processes. As related to the issuance 
of bonds, the fiftieth state's financial structure is limited to the 
state itself and four counties the city and county of Honolulu, 
which embraces the island of Oahu; the county of Hawaii, which 
is limited to that island; Kauai County, and Maui County, which 
includes that island and Molokai and Lanai. . . . [The fifth 
county is Kalawao, which comprises the leper settlement on the 
island of Molokai. Ed.] 

The governor's report noted that "never in Hawaii's history- 
has the state or the counties failed to make full interest and 
principal payment on their bonded debt when due. Never in 
history has a payment on an Hawaiian revenue bond been 

Commonwealth Services, Inc., engineering and consulting 
concern, . . . concluded that, while Hawaii ranks fiftieth in 
seniority among the states, "at no point is it fiftieth by reference 
to such standard measures of economic growth as total personal 
income, civilian employment, volume of retail trade, construction 
put in place, bank deposits or total population." 


Fast Growth 

In the last five years its rate of growth has been nearly twice 
that of the forty-eight mainland states as a group. Its growth is 
about as fast as California's but not quite as fast as Florida's or 

Output per farm worker is more than double the United 
States average and the state ranks seventh in average home con- 
sumption of electricity-4,736 kilowatt-hours, or 28 per cent 
above the national average of 3,707 as of June 30. 

The governor's report seeks in the main to dispel the idea 
that Hawaii is just a land of tourists and pineapples, although 
tourism brings in more than $100 million a year and pineapples 
account for an additional $130 million. 

The garment industry, best known for aloha shirts and the 
women's muu muu, add $18 million to the state's economy. 

Sugar brings in an additional $130 million and Hawaiians 
look for great expanson in this field because of the present Cuban 
situation. The cane sugar yield runs above five tons a year per 
acre, against two tons in Louisiana and Cuba and four tons in 

Defense Expenditures 

Also looming large in the economic picture is the military, 
whose payrolls and purchases of goods and services top $330 
million a year. However, the report warns that "in the Hawaii 
of 1960 . . . Defense Department expenditures represent less than 
one quarter of Hawaii's total personal income." 

Expansion in the state is concentrated in fields such as steel 
production, cement plants, oil refining, steel pipe fabrication, 
plastics, electronics and other modern industries. Big-name 
mainland companies are stepping into the picture all the time. 

The Standard Oil Company of California is opening a new 
refinery this month. Hawaiian Cement and Permanente Cement 
started their operations this summer and Hawaiian Western 
Steel's electric melting and rolling facilities are operating on a 
regular schedule. 

Total private and government construction has risen from 
$97 million in 1955 to $216 million last year and the estimate 
for this year is $260 million. 


In summary, Governor Quinn's report points out that "no 
state has so few units of local government . . . with no school 
districts, no townships, no separate municipalities to levy taxes 
or incur debt." These are the prime reasons for the state's sound 
investment and financial progress. 




One immediate result of statehood for Alaska and Hawaii 
was publicity front-page headlines across the United States 
welcoming the new states and congratulating them on their fine 
qualities. Tourists, and even people with permanent residence 
in mind, flocked in to see for themselves. The result was an 
economic boomlet which added to the rosy glow of admission 
to the United States on equal footing. 

Tourism is still a major source of income for the new states, 
but inevitably it has fallen somewhat from its post-statehood 
peak. Of the two states, Alaska has the greater economic potential 
by virtue of its vast size, its untapped resources, and its oppor- 
tunities for expansion. Hawaii, a crowded if halcyon island 
paradise, has a vexing land problem which admittedly hampers 
development goals. Both states are attracting imaginative and 
ambitious men, however, arid as far as both are concerned the 
future trend should be bracingly upward. 

This section contains three articles, two of which examine 
the economies of Alaska and Hawaii in considerable detail. In 
the first a financial analyst puts his mind to Alaska's economic 
outlook and determines that, despite a number of weaknesses, 
long-range prospects are favorable. The second article, from U.S. 
News & World Report, emphasizes some of the economic difficul- 
ties confronting the forty-ninth state three years after admission 
to the Union. In the last article, a writer for Fortune draws a 
lively and fascinating picture of Hawaii's golden era and of the 
men and ideas that are shaping its future. 


The future progress of the economy and development of our 
forty-ninth state is more difficult to chart than that of any other 

1 Frorrt "Alaska: The Economic Outlook,'* by Ivan Block, director of a private 
Industrial and economic consulting firm with interests in Alaska. Financial Analysts 
Journal 16:31-42. Ja.-F. '60. Reprinted by permission. 


state of the Union. This vast land area of almost 600,000 square 
miles, with a present population of 220,000 people (of which 
50,000 are military personnel), intrigues the imaginative inquirer 
but baffles the rational analyst On the one hand, the lure of 
the unknown brings visions of vast, untapped resources; on the 
other, the hard facts of operating life in this last frontier often are 
discouraging but to the venturesome. 

Frontier development, historically, has reflected the same pat- 
terns. If the breaching of the West had been left to the arith- 
metic of its promises, as then visualized by the prudent analyst, 
one might retrospectively conclude that nothing would have 
happened: no railroads, no frontier towns, no mineral develop- 
ment, no cutting of timber and plowing of virgin soils. To be 
sure, the winning of the West as that yet to be achieved in 
Alaska may have been an inefficient process, wasteful of men 
and capital resources. However, in the balance, the eventual 
total gains have been immeasurably large. 

A realistic, hard-headed appraisal of Alaska's potentials can 
lead to no assured conclusion of fact. For instance, merely look- 
ing at the market potential in terms of less than a quarter of a 
million population and that alone is simple and essentially 
negative; there are dozens upon dozens of communities in the 
more developed states which contain that much population 
within a radius of a very few miles. However, if this population 
is viewed in terms of its unsatisfied needs for goods and services 
(relatively isolated from supply by distance and transportation 
costs), in terms of high standards of living, and in terms of 
specific and sometimes peculiar needs, the opportunity picture 
comes into some focus. 

As in the fruition of the West, natural resources furnish an 
important even though not always clearly defined base. Again 
the pattern for Alaska is repetitive of that historical for the West: 
early accent on gold and precious metals, leading to exploitation 
of base metals; opening operations in forests and lands, and 
drilling of vast areas for oil and gas. However, it is necessary to 
view Alaska in terms of its peculiarities, and less in terms of 
example which might be sought elsewhere. For Alaska is unique 
in spite of rationales to the contrary. If it resembles anything 
familiar, perhaps the northern tier of the other forty-eight 


states provides some basis for comparison. Even there, the total 
picture cannot be assembled from a few similarities. 

Alaska's 586,400 square miles (almost 400 million acres, or 
twice the area of Texas) contain a great variety of climatic and 
physiographic features which, in some measure, bear upon the 
nature of development. The Southeastern Panhandle, an archi- 
pelago, is mountainous, heavily forested, and has a mild, wet 
climate. Its tidal sweep, and its fjords have supported fisheries 
for salmon and other species. The truly enormous forests are 
feeding pulp and paper plants, with more to come. In this area 
of scenic beauty although all of Alaska is breathtaking in its 
vistas are located the state's capital city of Juneau, with a 
population of 10,000, the communities of Ketchikan, Petersburg, 
Wrangell and Sitka. 

The Country's Terrain 

The massive land body of Central Alaska itself divides into 
distinguishable physiographic and climatic units. The Kenai 
Peninsula and the Cook Inlet areas contain the rugged Kenai and 
Chugach mountain ranges, with a gently sloping platform of 
land bordering Cook Inlet itself. Anchorage, Alaska's largest city 
(100,000) is located in a wide plain area bounded to its south 
by the Chugach Range. North of Anchorage is the vast Susitna 
River valley, bounded to the north by the Alaska Range. To the 
east, is the Matanuska Valley, long known for its agricultural 
lands and development. These areas have a moderate climate, 
with reasonably cold winters, and warm summers. North of the 
Alaska Range in which are located Mt. McKinley, Foraker and 
other majestic peaks, is a vast plain in which flow the Yukon, 
Kuskokwim, Tanana and their tributaries. Winters are quite 
cold, with moderate snowfall, and summers are intensely hot 

Fairbanks, Alaska's second largest city, is located in this plain, 
which is bounded to the north by the Brooks Range which drains 
into the Arctic Ocean. The Alaska Peninsula comprises very 
large mountain ranges and large lakes. The Aleutian peninsula 
is composed on an archipelago of relatively barren islands. Al- 
though there are forests in most of the central area south of the 
Arctic Circle, these have not yet been exploited for more than 
local needs. Mineral activity in this entire area had a boom start 
with the Alaska gold rush. Today, mining is sporadic and spotty, 


with the emphasis on coal (of which Alaska is bountiful), sand 
and gravel. Agriculture, oriented toward local consumption, is 
concentrated in the Matanuska Valley, near Anchorage, and the 
Xanana Valley near Fairbanks. Fisheries, a major contributor 
to Alaska's economy, are operated in Southeast Alaska, the Prince 
William Sound, the areas around Kodiak Island, Bristol Bay, and 
other open-sea areas. Salmon, crab and shell fish are principal 
commercial species. 

Transportation Stresses Air 

Transportation to and within Alaska has always been of im- 
portance to the development of the state. The air age has been in- 
timately connected with the daily activity of every part of Alaska. 
Ten certified airlines place the state's communities within easy 
reach of most cities "outside." It is only a quick four and a half 
to five hours between Seattle and Anchorage and Fairbanks. New 
York is fourteen hours away; Chicago not quite twelve hours; 
and Los Angeles about ten hours. With coming jet travel, even 
these short trips will be substantially reduced in time. In addi- 
tion, a growing number of world airlines now utilize Anchorage 
as a hub for transpolar air routes to Europe and the Far East, 
and Fairbanks is likely to share this position also. The Alaskan 
has been weaned on the airplane. Outside of numerous cer- 
tified airlines serving all sections of Alaska, and ubiquitous 
charter operations, the number of privately owned aircraft is 
greater in Alaska than anywhere else in the world. Air freight 
moves intra- and inter-Alaska in enormous, growing quantities. 

Waterborne commerce is of extreme importance. The pioneer 
steamship services of Alaska Steamship Company has been sup- 
plemented with numerous tug-barge operations on a frequent and 
scheduled basis from Puget Sound, Columbia River and Cali- 
fornia coastal points. Good harbors are found in nearly all coast- 
al parts of Alaska. Panhandle communities all have deep-draft 
harbors. The Prince William Sound area has all-year, deep-draft 
ports at Cordova, Valdez, Seward and Whittier, the last two also 
serving the Alaska Railroad. . . . 

The Alaska Highway provides the sole overland motor route 
to and from Alaska. Considerable all-year traffic exists on this 
highway, including growing truck movements. The portion in 


Alaska is excellent, whereas the Canadian graveled section 
1,200 milesremains to be paved. Within the new state are 
only 5,100 miles of roads, of which about 2,000 are paved. About 
two thirds of the total mileage is open to all-year traffic. 

No rail facilities exist between Alaska, Canada, and the main- 
land states. . . . Studies are now under way by the United States 
Alaska International Rail and Highway Commission to reinvesti- 
gate the possibilities of rail system which would link Alaska with 
West Coast points. Whether the Pacific Great Eastern, which 
intersects the transcontinental Canadian National line, 400 miles 
eastward of Prince Rupert on the Pacific Coast, will be extended 
further, or whether the Wenner-Gren project on the upper Peace 
River in northern British Columbia will include a rail link is not 
yet clear. However, whatever rail route is extended, its Alaskan 
terminus is most likely to be Fairbanks, the northernmost com- 
munity served by the Alaska Railroad. This 500-mile federally 
operated and fully modern facility, extends southward from 
Fairbanks to the Matanuska Valley, to Anchorage and thence to 
the Prince William all-year ports of Whittier and Seward. 

It is on the Alaska Railroad "Railbelt" that most of Alaska's 
population is concentrated. Fairbanks, about 125 miles south of 
the Arctic Circle, has a population of around 50,000. Anchorage 
and its immediate environs has grown from a mere tent city in 
1915 to a modern metropolis of some 100,000. . . . 

Indices of Economic Development 

The population of Alaska has been increasing quite rapidly. 
From around 70,000 in 1940, the present [1960] total is in excess 
of 220,000, of wliich around 50,000 are military personnel. Dur- 
ing the period 1951-52, a sharp increase of almost 32 per cent in 
total number of military personnel was accompanied by an in- 
crease of close to 15 per cent in civilian population. While the 
majority of these new civilians are, in theory, only temporary 
residents brought by the demands for construction workers in 
military and defense installations (as for the famous DEW line 
[Distant Early Warning line of arctic radar stations] and White 
Alice [a communications system that transmits messages over 
North America] projects), a large portion remains to swell what 
might be termed "stable" or "normal" population. This stable 


population has been steadily Increasing year after year, in spite 
of the seasonal swings which coincide with construction and 
resources-based activity. 

Although it is very difficult to forecast the possible growth of 
population of the new state, it is likely to continue at an annual 
total rate ranging between 6 ... [and] 8 per cent (as contrasted 
to around 1.6 per cent for the United States). Thus, in 1975, it is 
likely that Alaska may contain around 750,000 persons, depend- 
ing on the tempo of development of certain primary industries 
and the anticipated rate of decrease in total military personnel. 

Youthful State 

A characteristic of Alaska's population is its youth. In 1950, 
the United States Census data showed a median age for Alaska 
of 25.8, whereas that in the United States was 30.1 It appears 
this disparity continues. Alaska's birth rate per 1,000 population 
has been steadily increasing: from 23.2 in 1945 to 37.0 in 1956, 
as contrasted to 19.6 and 25.2 respectively for the United States. 
Similarly, the Alaska death rate has been substantially under 
that of the United States, and has been dropping even more 
rapidly each succeeding year. 

The youthful character of Alaska's population reflects itself, 
obviously, in school enrollment in public primary and secondary 
systems. Excluding students in Alaska Native Service schools, 
and the few private institutions, in 1940 there were only 6,312 
enrollments. This has grown in rapid fashion: 13,909 in 1950, 
and 35,888 in 1957 

The gross volume of business also has shown consistent up- 
ward gains, more than doubling during the past seven years. 
. . . Similarly, banking activity has shown remarkably continu- 
ous growth. Another significant index of development is found 
in the continuing rise in airline passenger and freight tranporta- 
tion inter- and intra-Alaska for certified airmail carriers. 

A few other examples can be cited to demonstrate growth. 
During the period 1947-1957, the number of passenger auto- 
mobile registrations increased more than sevenfold, from slightly 
over 7,000 to almost 50,000. Truck registries jumped similarly 
from about 4,000 to over 17,000. Telephone connections (the 
majority being in the major cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks, 
Juneau) increased from 11,000 to over 30,000. 


Defense Is Key 

The Alaska economy of today is heavily oriented to defense 
activities. The strategic position of the new state has been re- 
flected in enormous construction of military projects: air fields 
and their bases; radar and communications systems (as indicated 
before, comprising the DEW line and White Alice projects) ; na- 
val bases; and more recently, the emergence of ballistic missile 
detection, interception and launching facilities. Although pre- 
cise data on defense expenditures and size of personnel are obvi- 
ously "classified," it is possible to indicate a total defense ex- 
penditure of around $800 million for the period 1950-1957. This 
can be compared to estimates of the production of Alaska's 
primary industries for the same period of time: fisheries, $676 
million; minerals, $190 million; forest products, $116 million; 
furs, $47 million; agriculture, $25 million; or a total production 
of $1,054 million. 

The predominant position of the defense establishment and 
its corollary activities is reflected in the pattern of Alaska's em- 
ployment Considering military personnel as employed in a 
primary industry with a total of 64,100, about 47,000 are in 
military categories and only 17,100 in construction, mining, 
lumber and pulp, hunting and fishing, food processing and other 
primary manufacturing. Most of the 5,863 employed in con- 
struction are directly related to military activity. (These data 
represent reported monthly average employment for 1957.) . . . 

The dependence of Alaska's economy on defense considera- 
tions has always been a matter of considerable discussion in 
attempts to visualize the state's future development. The pessi- 
mistic view such an economy as tenuous and pose the ques- 
tion "What would happen if the military were to pull out of 
Alaska?" Those contrary-minded scoff that Alaska's position in 
world strategy is too important to admit that such a possibility 
is remotely in sight. The fact remains that each shift in defense 
technology has caused heavy activity in Alaska, with conse- 
quently high rates of expenditures for construction and the 
establishment of ancillary facilities. Even though there are 
shifts in the types of defense establishment (such as entailing 
lesser dollar-value expenditures for the construction of facilities 
but greater values in the types of equipment established), it 


can be argued that the net effect on the total economy will 
remain on a sort of plateau, i.e., that if there are reductions 
in the value of direct military construction, the shift to highly 
expert and trained technologists to man the new installations 
will result in the construction of better housing and related 
facilities and the employment of higher-income personnel. 

One is impressed, however, with the general observation that 
the pattern of Alaska's development is somewhat similar to that 
which historically took place in the early days of the western 
frontier. The establishment of military outposts and garrisons 
in the 1800's was soon followed by the development of rudi- 
mentary service economies, and the rapid exploitation of neigh- 
boring natural resources. So in Alaska, the defense economy 
base has stimulated and enhanced the growth of ancillary 
primary and service industries. . . . 

Even though much of Alaska's economy might be character- 
ized as "taking each other's washing," consolidation and diversi- 
fication is becoming increasingly evident. A nondefense-oriented 
economic base is taking shape, principally (and again follow- 
ing traditional patterns of western expanision) in the field of 
natural resources development, supplemented by the exploita- 
tion of Alaska's global transportation position and the expan- 
sion of its service establishments. 

Resources Development 

It is easy to talk of Alaska's "vast untapped resources" but 
it is not so simple to be precise as to their elements for poten- 
tial development. This is particularly true with regard to most 
of its minerals which, although very varied as to their kinds, 
are widely scattered throughout the immense area of the state, 
and more usually than not, isolated from consumptive markets 
by rugged terrain and long distances. If one could generalize 
as to the controlling elements of resources exploitation in Alaska, 
one might summarize the situation somewhat as follows: 

1. Present local markets (i.e., oriented to Alaska's population 
and its demands) can support small units of production in agri- 
culture, some construction materials, and in fuels and electric 

2. Markets along the U.S. West Coast and elsewhere in the 
other states are and will be shaped by the uniqueness of the 


specific Alaskan resource, and the economics of its location (i.e., 
with regard to lowest cost transportation) . 

3. The natural resources requirements of Japan and perhaps 
other Far Eastern nations present an unusual opportunity for 
Alaskan resources development. 

4 The strategic world location of Alaska with regard to 
transpolar air and sea and even possibly overland routes may 
have profound eventual implications on its development of fuel 

Outside of fisheries (which are plagued with vexing problems 
of resources management), the forests of Alaska are the present 
source of major-scale resources development. . . . 

In contrast to the development of the Alaskan forest industry 
which is oriented to consumer demands of the United States and 
Japan, the rendition of value from Alaska's agricultural lands 
rests upon the needs of local population for certain food products 
which these lands are capable of producing. ... Of a total 
of around 3 million acres believed to be suitable in all of Alaska 
for agriculture by virtue of soil characteristics and climatic con- 
ditions, only about 20,000 acres are now under cultivation. The 
intensity of the short growing season (long hours of warm sun- 
shine) make possible very high yields of such root crops as 
potatoes, carrots, turnips and beets; leafy vegetables as cab- 
bage and broccoli in the Matanuska Valley; various cereal crops 
as wheat, barley, rye in the Tanana Valley. Dairying activity is 
particularly well established in the Matanuska Valley. Kodialc 
and some portions of the Aleutians are noted for the initial pro- 
duction of some beef and sheep. The products of this agricul- 
tural activity are consumed locally and in 1957 were valued 
at slightly under $5 million. . . . The winning of land is ex- 
pensive: the clearing of forest and brush cover from lands other- 
wise suited for agriculture has been accomplished on a piece- 
meal basis at very high per- acre costs. . . . Transportation costs 
on agricultural products provide both a curse and a blessing: 
on the one hand, the price of certain feeds, of fertilizer and 
weedicides is high; on the other, freight rates on food com- 
modities from the rest of the United States offer an "umbrella" 
for the local Alaskan producer. . . . 


Tapping Mineral Resources 

Although certain mineral resources are known to exist in sub- 
stantial quantities, the vastness of the new state as yet obscures 
their extent. It is probable that with the extension of roads and 
highways, and a greater degree of continuous exploration utiliz- 
ing modern geophysical methods important new discoveries may 
be made of commercial minerals. One must remark, however, 
that Alaska has been extensively examined geologically, and 
that the known variety of mineral occurrences does not neces- 
sarily connote commercial quantities. 

The gold mining industry of Alaska, in past years, was a 
major activity. However, of total 1957 mineral production of 
close to $30 million, sand and gravel, and coal mining now 
account for equally important values of production, and mercury 
ranks among major contributors to total value. . . . 

Best known of Alaska's mineral resources, and which sus- 
tain substantial production year after year, are its coal reserves. 
. . . The processing of Alaska's major coal resources (estimated 
substantially in excess of 100 billion tons) offers some interest- 
ing, but as yet speculative avenues of approach. For example, 
the scale of coal mining in the Nenana coal fields about one 
hundred miles south of Fairbanks on the Alaska Railroad is 
likely to range between 500,000 to 750,000 tons in the foresee- 
able future. . . . The vast arctic coal reserves may become im- 
portant to world markets if the proposed harbor on the Arctic 
Ocean to be constructed through the use of nuclear explosives 
(Operations Plowshare) becomes reality. . . . 

Search for Oil 

Of greatest interest in very recent years has been the discovery 
of what appears to be commercial quantities of oil and possibly 
natural gas in certain areas of Alaska. Geological authorities 
deem a large portion of Alaska as "including rocks that theoretic- 
ally could contain oil deposits." Exploration and land leasing 
have been at fever-pitch during the past five years, in such as 
the Kenai Peninsula, the Alaskan Peninsula and Bristol Bay 
areas, along portions of Prince William Sound, in the enor- 
mous interior areas of the Yukon and Kuskokwim basins, and 
north of the Brooks Range along the arctic drainages beyond 


the Arctic Circle. In common with oil and gas exploration, specu- 
lation has moved through cycles of extreme optimism, rank 
discouragement, and again back to considerable hopes that 
producing areas can be found ... 

The Alaskan oil situation has brought forth activity in ex- 
ploration and drilling by virtually every major company and 
many others. California Standard, Richfield, Phillips, Humble, 
Union of California, Ohio, Sunray Mid-Continent, General 
Petroleum, Shell, and many others have established exploratory 
operations in many sections of the state. Similarly, geophysical 
exploration companies, drilling, and various other types of sup- 
porting firms have established quarters in major communities 
of central, western and northern Alaska. It is estimated that 
in Anchorage alone, these activities have brought forth a payroll 
of at least $3.5 million a year. The possibilities of expansion 
are highlighted by the recent announcement by California 
Standard that it will drill additional wells in the Kenai Penin- 
sula and continue exploration at a total cost for 1960 of $3 
million. Similarly, late in the fall of 1959, Richfield received 
approval by the Federal Government for a major exploration 
program for oil and gas over approximately 1 million acres in 
the Katalla-Yakataga area on the Gulf of Alaska. . . . 

Natural gas reserves are also the scene of considerable ex- 
ploration and drilling activity. Definitive statements as to pos- 
sible reserves and commercial quantities have not yet been 
made by responsible oil companies. However, Union has entered 
into a contract with the Anchorage Natural Gas Company which 
obtained a distribution franchise in Anchorage in the fall of 
1959. This would necessitate a pipeline from the Kenai fields 
to Anchorage, a distance of one hundred miles. Other potential 
fields extend along the Cook Inlet and the upper Matanuska 
and lower Susitna valleys near Anchorage, and in the far reaches 
of the Arctic Slopes several hundreds of miles north of Fairbanks. 

There has been considerable speculation with regard to the 
establishment of petrochemical industries in Alaska based on 
prospective natural gas and oil production. If such chemical 
units become feasible, it is most likely that these will be ori- 
ented with regard to Japanese markets principally, with local 
and West Coast outlets depending on competitive factors which 
as yet cannot be stated with certainty. 


Vast Hydroelectric Power 

The resources briefly outlined in the foregoing are exhaustible 
in nature. By comparison, Alaska's hydroelectric potential from 
its lakes and streams is inexhaustible. Various estimates have 
been made regarding this potential. Most informed sources in- 
dicate a possible development of at least 20 million kilowatts 
of installed capacity. Development to date has been meager 
and in relatively small sites such as Eklutna (30,000 kilowatts) 
of the United States Bureau of Reclamation near Anchorage, 
Cooper Lake (15,000 kilowatts under final stages of construction) 
by the Chugach Electric Association of Anchorage, and numer- 
ous smaller plants in southeastern Alaska 

Some truly giant projects have been under various stages 
of preliminary investigation throughout Alaska. One of the most 
impressive in terms of potential capacity at very low cost per 
kilowatt-hour is the Taiya project near Haines. This would 
involve the diversion of headwaters of the Yukon River in Canada 
to a power plant with a capacity of around 2 million kilowatts 
in coastal Alaska. Another enormous project entails two dams 
on the Copper River. The Wood Canyon and Peninsula Projects 
would also have a possible capacity of 2 million kilowatts. 
However, the largest of all entails a tremendous dam and a 
reservoir having an area surpassing that of Lake Erie on the 
Yukon River, some 120 miles northwest of Fairbanks. The Ram- 
part Project, on which initial studies are to begin, would have a 
generating capacity well in excess of 4 million kilowatts. These 
very large projects, ranking among the world's biggest, will re- 
quire many years for investigation, engineering and eventual 
construction. . . . 

In the cursory sketch of natural resources development dis- 
cussed in the foregoing, it becomes apparent that this will en- 
tail extremely large sums of money. Both public and private 
funds will have to be utilized. In power development, to date, 
with one or two very minor exceptions, financing has been ac- 
complished either through the issuance of municipal revenue 
bonds or through loans to local rural electric cooperative asso- 
ciations by the United States Rural Electrification Administra- 
tion. The very large hydroelectric projects will require very 
long-term financing at lowest interest rates. Presumably these 


can be financed only by the Federal Government on traditional 
repayment bases. Private power development has made no prog- 
ress in Alaska to this time. Oil and gas exploitation, as well 
as that for coal and other mineral resources, has been largely by 
private means save for some basic exploration by Federal and 
formerly territorial, now state, agencies. 

The place of the Japanese market and of Japanese-based 
investment has been alluded to in prior discussion. The interest 
of Japan in Alaska is extremely active, and the Alaskans view 
Japan as a major market opportunity. As a consequence, plan- 
ning for industrial production or for industrial sales must give 
weight to this situation. Japan's interest in tapping Alaska's 
resources is already evidenced by the establishment of the Sitka 
cellulose pulp operation. Similarly, Japanese geologists and engi- 
neers are steadfastly exploring other resources, notably coal 
and oil. . . . 

In contrast to resources development which appears poten- 
tially important for national and world markets, except as 
specifically indicated in the foregoing as for agriculture^ the de- 
velopment of manufacturing in Alaska can be viewed in terms 
of meeting local needs. As pointed out, the total present Alaskan 
consuming market is measured in terms of its present popula- 
tion of 220,000, and its estimated growth to 750,000 by 1975. 
Of this total market, about two thirds is in the Railroad Belt 
including the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks and their en- 
virons. Even if one modifies the estimate in terms of high per- 
sonal income, the total purchasing power is still quite small as 
compared with even moderately sized communities in the rest 
of the United States. However, and this is the difference which 
bears consideration, the Alaska market is a "captive" of distance 
and high transportation costs and is isolated from competitive 
producing centers of manufactured products. . . . 


One vast area of growing importance entails the outstanding 
recreational assets of Alaska. The superlative grandeur of Alas- 
ka's scenic vistas, its almost unlimited opportunities for all types 
of outdoor recreation have been well publicized. However, and 
candor must prevail, the size and characteristics of accommoda- 


tions and facilities do not begin to be adequate for the tourist 
potential at hand. This does not imply there are no good facili- 
ties in Alaska; on the contrary, some of the hotels and motels 
(including some now under construction) are comparable to 
better ones "outside." The fact remains that the number and 
locations are inadequate, and until more attention is given to 
the^ problem, the full recreational potential of Alaska will re- 
main dormant. It has been said, by apologists for the situation, 
that the seasonal character of Alaska's recreational potential 
presents an insurmountable obstacle to full development. Actu- 
ally, no serious attempts have yet been made to develop the 
year-round opportunities, ranging . . . [the] gamut of winter 
sports (including cross-country skiing, dogsledding with well- 
organized hut and lodge facilities), of hiking, mountain climb- 
ing and camping, of fishing and hunting and wildlife observa- 
tion. . . . 

With increasing ease of rapid transportation by jet, Alaska's 
innumerable recreational assets will become accessible to thou- 
sands of distant visitors from all parts of the United States, and, 
by means of the transpolar route, of the world. What is needed 
is a series of planned and integrated rental or charter transpor- 
tation services from major airports to lakes, streams and moun- 
tain areas in which should be established adequate lodging and 
eating facilities. A breakthrough by a well organized and 
financed group in this field is a matter of time, and would be 
the precursor of substantial similar developments as are taking 
place elsewhere in the world, as in the Andes, Australia and 
New Zealand, not to mention European areas, 

Business Operating Conditions 

Doing business in Alaska is not greatly more difficult or 
complicated than elsewhere in the United States. To be certain, 
there are some differences which essentially relate to the estab- 
lishment rather than operation of enterprises. The climatic 
hazards are no greater than those obtaining in the northern tier 
of states. Transportation by air between Alaskan communities 
is frequent and reliable, as it is with the "outside." Telephone 
service, especially to other parts of the United States, is excellent 
although expensive. The shipping of freight by water is time- 


consuming and, by and large, expensive due to present lack of 
back-haul. However, it is not an insurmountable obstacle to 
most business operations. 

High Cost of Living 

The cost of living in Alaska is high, and artificially so. ... 
As might be expected, wage rates are also high although in 
some categories they are comparable to those which prevail 
in New York City. Skilled office help is reasonably available; 
more often than not, permanent commercial establishments draw 
upon Federal employees wishing to change occupational ^ status. 
Rentals of office and commercial space are high but, with the 
increasing number of good, modern office buildings, the situa- 
tion should become ameliorated. With increasing diversification 
of enterprise, both quantity and quality of personnel and physi- 
cal facilities are improving year after year. . . . 

The new state's government, in common with its citizens, 
is even more industry and business-development conscious 
than most older states. The inquiring industrialist, or business- 
man, will find the atmosphere conducive to negotiation and 
discussion. As evidence of this desire to provide all possible 
incentives to development, on March 29, 1957, the territorial 
legislature passed comprehensive legislation to facilitate such 
development The act ... enunciates policies and mechanisms 
for temporary industrial tax incentives which are extremely 
liberal even though subject to administration and review by a 
Board and Director of Industrial Tax Exemption. Designated 
industrial and commercial operations are exempt from income 
tax upon industrial development income derived during ten 
years following commencement of operations. Similarly, such 
exempted businesses are not subject to any license fees, excise 
or other taxes for a period of ten years except contributions to the 
Alaska Unemployment Compensation Fund. The property of 
such businesses . . . [is] also exempted from all taxes (save Fed- 
eral of course) for periods of years adjusted to the size of the in- 
vestments. For example, the period of exemption is five years 
for investment in real or personal property under $1 million, 
but ten years when such investment exceeds $10 million. . . 


Under the United States Congress "Alaska Omnibus Bill" of 
1959, Alaska is made eligible to participate in a number of 
Federal grants-in-aid programs on a comparable basis with 
other states. It also terminates certain special Federal programs 
in the new state, and authorizes measures for the orderly transi- 
tion from territorial to state organization and operations. It 
clarifies the applicability or inapplicability of certain laws to 
Alaska. Certain transitional aids are provided to the new state 
amounting to $28.5 million during the next five years, . . . 


A lot of Alaskans are having second thoughts about statehood 
now that the bills are coming in. 

The jubilation that greeted the birth of this forty-ninth state 
a little more than three years ago has turned, in many instances, 
to disillusionment. After nearly one hundred years as a ward 
of the Federal Government, Alaska has not found the transition 
from territory to state to be easy. 

"Alaska," says its governor, William A. Egan, "is beset by 
problems as awesome as its geography." 

Some of these problems are just coming to the surface. Others 
have been evident for years. They include: 

Deep cutbacks in military spending in Alaska, with a re- 
sultant drop in incomes in some areas of the state. 

Unexpectedly high costs of state government, coupled with 
widespread complaints of a growing bureaucracy. 

Steadily rising taxes, including cigarette, gasoline and liquor 
taxes that are among the highest in any state. 

Depressed condition of some of Alaska's traditional industries, 
such as gold mining, agriculture, fishing and coal mining. 

Lack of investment capital to develop new industries which 
Alaskans believe are the hope of the future. 

These major problems, and other lesser ones, are hampering 
the efforts of Alaskans to give this country's largest state a 
land bursting with natural resources a self-supporting economy. 

Despite these handicaps, some residents of this infant state 
point to developments on the less gloomy side. Among these are: 

From 'The 49th State Three Years Later." C7.S. News & World Report. 52:65-8. 
Mr 19, '62. Reprinted from U.S. News & World Report, published at Washington. 
Copyright 1962 U.S. News & World Report, Inc. 


New discoveries of oil that have spurred major oil com- 
panies to intensified exploration and drilling. 

Beginnings of trade with Japan that could provide Alaska 
with an overseas market easily accessible by water. 

Improvement of sea and air transportation that could bring 
an influx of tourists loaded with dollars to spend. 

Prospect of cheap electric power if proposed hydroelectric 
facilities for central Alaska are built by the United States Gov- 
ernment, providing a lure for industries. 

Vast riches in natural resources in the interior areas that 
have scarcely been touched. 

Alaskans who look at this bright side of the coin say: 
"Don't sell us short." 

A major source of Alaska's troubles has been the sharp drop 
in Federal defense spending here. Military construction in the 
year to end June 30 [1962] will be down to about $38 million 
40 per cent of last year's volume when the big radar station 
at Clear, a $250 million project, was being built. 

Government spending normally provides about 50 per cent 
of Alaska's income. Of this, 40 per cent comes from the Fed- 
eral Government. So the cutbacks are widening the gap be- 
tween the state's income and its spending. . . . 

Other factors are involved, too. The number of insured work- 
ers employed on heavy construction projects, most of them mili- 
tary, dropped from a peak of 10,500 in 1951 to 5,500 in mid- 1961. 

Big military spending and a short building season have 
combined to give Alaska a high wage structure. Plumbers get 
$5.40 an hour, electricians $5.75. Often they work sixty or 
seventy hours a week. 

But high seasonal wages and lack of year-round jobs hurt 
the economy and lead to high prices. Last year, unemployment 
in Alaska averaged 12 per cent about twice the national rate. 
At winter's peak, in February, unemployment climbs to 50 per 
cent in some areas. 

Prices in Anchorage, a Government survey disclosed, are 27 
per cent higher than in Seattle, and prices in Fairbanks are 36 
per cent higher. In Anchorage, a haircut costs $2.50, half soles 
for shoes are $4.50, and milk is 45 cents a quart. In Juneau, 
eggs are $1.06 a dozen. 


House-heating costs in central and western Alaska, where 
winters are long and temperatures range to 75 below zero, are 
$75 a month or more. 

New cars cost $400 to $500 more than in the Pacific Coast 
states. There are extra expenses, also, for heavy-duty batteries 
and heaters to keep engines warm overnight 

Alaska grows only 8 per cent of the food it consumes. All 
the rest must be brought in, along with practically all consumer 
goods, at high freight rates. 

High wages and prices are an obstacle to development when 
the cost-plus-fixed-fee clause of military contracts does not apply. 
Many firms compare Alaskan costs and prices with those else- 
where in the United States and decide against investing. 

Alaska, in the last three years, has had to set up an entirely 
new state government. This has generated other problems. 

The division of highways had to take over administration of 
the multimillion-dollar Federal highway program. The depart- 
ment of fish and game now manages Alaska's abundant wild- 
life resources. The division of lands now administers the 104 
million acres which the state eventually will take over from 
the Federal Government. Prior to statehood, 98 per cent of 
Alaska's land was still under Federal ownership. Also, a state 
judicial system had to be established. 

All these new state agencies cost money. This has resulted 
in soaring taxes and much grumbling about the way things 
are run. 

The number of state employees has reached nearly 4,000, 
compared with the 750 employed when Alaska was a territory. 

State budgets have gone up as services have expanded. The 
last territorial budget was about $18 million. State budgets have 
been $33.3 million in 1959-60; $46.5 million in 1960-61; $55.7 
million in 1961-62, and $70.4 million proposed for 1962-63, 
plus $7.9 million in supplemental appropriations for the current 
[1961-62] year. 

The Federal Government granted Alaska a "dowry" of $30 
million to aid in transition from territory to state. But, after 
the state gets $2.4 million in each of the next two fiscal years, 
this fund will be exhausted. . . . 

To many Alaskans, the tax bite under statehood comes as 
a shock. Taxes were increased last year to raise an extra $3.6 


million. For individuals, the state income tax went up from 14 
per cent to 16 per cent of the Federal income tax paid. 

The tax on gasoline is 8 cents a gallon; on cigarettes, 8 cents 
a pack; on liquor, $4 a gallon. There is no state sales tax, but a 
$10-a-year school tax applies to all aged nineteen to sixty. 

Despite tax increases, Alaska ranks relatively low among the 
fifty states in the amount of taxes paid by the average resident 
per dollar of personal income. 

Because of high prices, it takes a $10,000 income to buy the 
same goods and services that a $7,500 income will buy in Seattle. 
But Alaskan incomes are about one fifth above the United 
States average. 

Layoffs in military construction have added to the unem- 
ployment problem created by unhealthy conditions in some of 
Alaska's traditional industries. 

Since the peak of employment in 1955, jobs have leveled off. 
In some areas, there has been a drop. The construction workers' 
union once had 3,300 members. Now there are 900. 

Gold mining, once very important, is declining steadily. It 
is increasingly difficult to cover costs and make a profit at the 
fixed price of $35 an ounce paid by the United States Treasury. 

Agriculture has been a disappointment. Only 25,000 acres 
out of 1 million rated suitable for farming are under cultivation. 

Coal mining has not expanded. Most of the coal mined in 
the state is used for power generation at military bases. 

Fishing, however, appears to be making a comeback after 
years of decline due to mismanagement and overexploitation. 
The salmon run of 1961 ranked with the best of thirty years ago, 
when salmon was Alaska's mainstay. 

Alaska is one in name only. It has a tremendous diversity 
of terrain, climate and resources, spread out over 586,400 square 
miles- nearly one fifth the size of the rest of the continental 
United States. 

The "panhandle" of southeast Alaska has few people, no 
access by road, cool summers, and winters only slightly colder 
than those on Puget Sound. Central Alaska, where the bulk of 
the population is, can go from 75 degrees below zero to 100 
above. The "ice block" nearly 50 per cent of the state that is 
mostly frozen tundra, as deep as two hundred feet is of little 
use commercially. 


Clashes of interest accentuate these differences. Says an 
Anchorage businessman: "Southeast Alaska is 180 degrees differ- 
ent from us. They have the seafood, forest industries and export; 
we only have the military. They're inaccessible by road. We're 
tied to the world's three largest cities New York, London and 
Tokyo by nonstop air service." 

Despite all these problems, however, many Alaskans believe 
their state government will be more flexible, more responsive to 
changing conditions and to the wishes of its residents, than an 
"absentee landlord" five thousand miles away in Washington, 

One of the most hopeful developments in recent years if not 
in Alaska's history was the discovery of oil on the Kenai 
Peninsula in July 1957. 

Already, a pipeline has been built to nearby Cook Inlet, 
where terminal facilities have been installed to load the oil on 
tankers. In its first year of operation, 5.5 million barrels of crude 
oil moved through the terminal. 

A $10 million refinery is now being built to provide petroleum 
products for the Alaskan market. 

More important, the Kenai discovery may be just a beginning. 
All geological signposts indicate that Alaska could become this 
country's top oil-producing state. It now ranks nineteenth among 
thirty-one oil-producing states. 

The search for oil has been speeded by a more liberal leasing 
policy. Previously, Congress permitted only 300,000 acres of 
federally owned land to be leased to any one company or 
individual. This rule has been changed to permit leasing of 
300,000 acres of United States-owned land in the northern part 
of the state and 300,000 acres in the southern part. The state 
allows 500,000-acre leases on land it owns. 

At present, 16,000 exploration leases are in effect, covering 
35 million acres. These leases cover less than half of the 80 
million acres considered to be potential petroleum sources. 

Even though oil is in its infancy in Alaska, it is already 
proving a major source of income. Last December, competitive 
bidding on oil leases brought in $15 millon about twice as much 
as had been anticipated. One firm alone paid $7,296,000 for 
leases $96,000 more than the United States paid to Russia for 
the entire state of Alaska. 


A second industry that Alaskans believe has a big potential 
Is the tourist trade. Alaska has some of the most spectacular 
scenery in the world, and is a paradise for fishermen and 

One big obstacle to a tourist boom is the difficulty of getting 
to Alaska. The only way to get there by road is over the Alaska 
Highway. This road is still unpaved on the Canadian side; it is 
dusty in summer and muddy in winter. 

Beginning later this year, however, there will be an alternate 
route to Alaska. Motorists will be able to drive from the United 
States to Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and there take a 
ferry north through the scenic island passage to Haines, Alaska. 
From there, highways lead to Anchorage and Fairbanks, in 
central Alaska. 

The idea is to provide a "loop" trip, going one way by the 
new automobile ferry and returning by way of the Alaska High- 

Sea and air transportation to Alaska are improving rapidly. 
More rail and shipping lines are going into the rail-barge busi- 
ness. New jet-plane service has put Juneau within two hours of 

Over-the-Pole flights from Europe to and from the Orient stop 
in Alaska. Airport runways at Anchorage and Fairbanks have 
been extended to handle jets, and terminals are being improved. 

About 16,000 transpolar passengers a month pass through 
Anchorage. There are as many as 60 international flights weekly. 
Development of Alaska as a center for international air travel is 
expected to stimulate the flow of tourists. 

While oil and tourism seem to be the best bets now, two 
other things could prove to be even more significant over the long 

One possibility is increased trade with Japan. The other is 
an ambitious Federal project to provide Alaska with abundant, 
cheap hydroelectric power, which is now lacking. . . . 

Already, Japan has poured $150 million into Alaska's forest 
industry. Alaska has 137 million acres of timber offering 2 mil- 
lion board feet annually on a sustained-yield basis. Only a 
small fraction of this is being utilized. 

In mid- 1960, a new pulp mill began operating near Sitka. 
It was financed by Japanese interests with the help of American 


investment bankers. It supplies pulp to Japan's rayon industry. 

Japan's investment in timber may be just a beginning. The 
Japanese have affirmed their interest in oil, liquefied natural gas, 
coal, iron ore, copper and other minerals. It appears wholly 
possible that Japanese capital, rather than American, may provide 
the key that will unlock Alaska's vast mineral storehouse. 

To develop these resources, Alaska's interior is going to have 
to be opened up. So inaccessible are many areas that even today 
the state does not know the extent of its mineral wealth. Prac- 
tically all known minerals have been found within the state 
silver, gold, lead, zinc, copper, mercury, antimony, platinum, 
chromium, nickel, iron ore, molybdenum and tungsten. 

"We have no regrets about statehood," says a labor leader. 
"All we need is a little more Federal help." There are many 
who disagree with this view, who say statehood came too scon 
and with too little preparation. 

Alaskans who view the future more as a challenge than a 
promise point to Scandinavia, on the opposite side of the world. 
It has a similar geographical location, yet 20 million people live 
there and have the highest living standard in the world outside 
the United States. 

These Alaskans add: "Russia would give anything to have us 
back. Then where would the United States be?" 


The first inkling of what impended was an earthquake. The 
green sea of sugar cane rolled violently under the repeated 
shocks, then seemed to surge forward upon the doomed village 
of Kapoho, engulfing it in leafy billows. By dusk, lava fountains 
were roaring from the cloven earth and a river of incandescent 
rock drove toward the Pacific, firing the plots of papaya, coffee, 
and orchids along the way. By dawn the beginnings of a great 
gray cone had been thrust above the charred plain. "Fire bombs" 
arched from it into a sky already aflame with red-hot cinders; 
the first of thousands of fish would soon be dead in the scalding 
waters offshore; and from deep within the Hawaiian earth were 
coming the lavas that would put Kapoho to the torch and bury 

8 From "Hawaii's A-PoppinY* by Richard Austin Smith, a Fortune magazine con- 
tributor. Fortune. 61:124-384-- Je. '60. Reprinted from the June 1960 issue of Fortune 
Magazine by Special Permission; I960 Time Inc. 


its ashes under many feet of molten rock. Hawaii, the nation's 
newest state, had begun the 1960's with terrifying evidence that, 
geologically at least, it was still very much on the make. One 
day Pele, the goddess of the volcanoes, may raise a whole new 
island out of the sea in just the way she raised the cone of 
Kapoho out of the sugar-cane fields. 

Meanwhile, the new state has been undergoing profound 
social, economic, and political changes, some of them more im- 
portant and only slightly less intense than the spectacle at 
Kapoho. These changes beneath the tranquil surface of the 
Islands may escape the attention of casual visitors and even of 
careful students of statistics. No dry figure on proportional repre- 
sentation, for instance, could express the pride of Hawaii's 
citizens of Chinese ancestry, many the descendants of coolie 
laborers, at Hiram Pong's becoming the first person of Oriental 
parentage ever to sit in the United States Senate. And Henry 
Kaisers coming to Hawaii six years ago is, in mathematical lingo, 
far down in the order of smalls; yet this increment of one to the 
Islands* population has stood the cement industry on its head 
and forced the airlines, the hotel owners, and the real-estate 
developers to break into a sprint lest they be run down by the 
cartwheeling septuagenarian. The bare figures of booming land 
prices (this April one parcel between downtown Honolulu and 
Waikiki was worth $22.50 per square foot, ten times the 1954 
valuation) give only a hint of Hawaii's increasingly explosive 
land situation. With landownership still concentrated in very 
few hands (four estates possess a whopping 40.5 per cent of 
Oahu's total acreage), demand is building up as never before, 
and with it political pressure in the legislature to force more 
land onto the market, through either heavier taxation or state 
purchase and resale. No toting up of Hawaii's bank deposits, 
which jumped from $563 million in January 1959 to $669 million 
in January 1960, suggests the virtual revolution the Islands have 
undergone in money matters. "We've had to teach our Oriental 
citizens that banks are sound and profitable places for the cash 
they're used to keeping in tin cans and under mattresses," said 
Rudolph Peterson of the Bank of Hawaii. "The Chinese expect 
their money to move fast The Filipinos don't like the idea of 
having what they own just coming down to some figures in a 
passbook: they want their wealth where they can handle it. 


There's no way to get to them except by word of mouth, so we 
have a Filipino officer of the bank go out in the cane fields and 
hold a sort of medicine show or camp meeting to get them to 
open accounts." The results, he added, are often startling: 
One man came in afterward with an oilskin money belt 
wrapped three times around him. He dropped his trousers to 
the knees right out on the banking floor getting the thing off, but 
in it was $17,000. Forty to 50 per cent of our new deposits come 
from God knows where mattresses, tin cans, holes in the ground, 
under the floor boards." 

In the broadest sense, the changes in Hawaii can be epito- 
mized in the single word statehood. That one event, plus the 
millions of dollars in free advertising that attended it, brought 
tourists in unprecedented numbers. Some 243,000 came in 1959, 
41 per cent above the 1958 total, and the record $101 million 
they spent in the Islands provided new horizons for the tourist 
business. First-quarter arrivals indicated that 1960 had the 
makings of an even bigger year for tourism: it topped the com- 
parable months of 1959 by 30 per cent The First National 
Bank of Hawaii (until this April the Bishop National) predicted 
that the number of visitors would reach a million by 1970, almost 
two million a year in the eighties. The rival Bank of Hawaii 
predicted tourism would pass the $131 million sugar industry as 
a major dollar earner by 1963 or 1964. But tourism aside, some 
of the changes have been long in the making and were merely 
precipitated or brought into sharp focus after Hawaii joined the 
Union. Others are as new as statehood itself. 

The ABC's of the Fiftieth State 

There are some important facts that a tourist might absorb 
in a fortnight of footing it around the Islands. Situated 2,400 
miles southwest of San Francisco and some 3,800 miles southeast 
of Tokyo, the fiftieth state is a group of seven major islands 
Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii all 
together bigger than the area of Connecticut plus Rhode Island 
and with more people (660,000) than either Alaska, Delaware, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, or Wyoming. The popu- 
lation contained only 12,000 pure Hawaiians in 1950, less than 
3 per cent, and the current census will probably reduce this to 


an even smaller percentage. The big unknown is whether the 
Japanese will continue as the largest ethnic group or lose their 
predominance to the Caucasians. Precensus estimates suggest 
that each now has roughly a third of the total. Following these 
are the part-Hawaiians (15 per cent), the Filipinos (11 per 
cent), the Chinese (6 per cent), with the remaining 4 per cent 
compounded mainly of Koreans, Puerto Ricans, Negroes, 

It was a band of New England missionaries, of course, who 
started the Islands on their way toward Western civilization. 
They arrived in 1820, forty-two years after Captain James Cook 
"discovered" Hawaii; the local saying is that they and successive 
missionary waves came to do good but stayed to do well. ^ The 
missionaries Christianized the Polynesian natives, moved in on 
the brawling town of Honolulu with its drunken whalers, estab- 
lished themselves as advisers to the Hawaiian kings, and engi- 
neered the Great Mahele, the land division of 1848. Missionaries 
and other Yankees started the great sugar-cane plantations, 
where the need for workers was met by importing Orientals under 
a contract-labor system described as "only a modification of 
slavery, founded in deceit and maintained by force." In these 
circumstances the "Big Five," a group of mercantile companies, 
grew to wield immense local power, financing the plantations, 
procuring their labor, purchasing their supplies, providing their 
transport, and selling their products. After an unsuccessful 
Hawaiian attempt to break the foreigners' religious, economic, 
and political power, the Islands became a republic in 1894, a 
territory in 1900, a state in 1959. 

The Oligarchs of the Islands 

Hawaii's new era was startlingly characterized this March 
by the head of one of the Big Five companies. "The old caste 
system," he said with satisfaction, "is breaking down." What he 
meant by the old caste system, and indeed what most Hawaiians 
mean when they use the phrase, is not a rigid society of im- 
permeable layers. He referred rather to a small circle of business 
Brahmins at the summit who had managed to preserve their 
aloofness and their control while below them the rest of Hawai- 


ian society remained relatively fluid. The economic, political,, 
and social power of this summit group pivoted on the Big Five. 

C. Brewer & Company, oldest of the Big Five, was established 
by Captain James Hunnewell in 1826 with $2,500 worth of trade 
goods brought in on HunnewelFs vessel. Another sea captain, 
Charles Brewer, gave his name to the promising mercantile 
business in 1842. 

Theo. H. Davies & Company (nee Starkey, Janion & Com- 
pany) has been in business since 1845, when the representative 
of a Liverpool firm arrived in the Islands with a stock of trade 
goods. Nearly 50 per cent of its securities are held by the Davies 
family, one of whose members, a young clerk from South Wales, 
got the company out of serious difficulties in the ... [1860*s]. 

American Factors (nee H. Hackfeld & Company) was 
founded by sea captain Henry Hackfeld of Bremen, Germany, 
in 1849. Branching out of the mercantile business into sugar, 
Hackfeld brought so much Bremen capital into the Islands that 
by 1880 a third of Hawaii's sugar plantations were financed by 
his company. World War I resulted in its seizure by the Alien 
Property Custodian and rebirth as American Factors. 

Castle & Cooke began as a partnership of Samuel Northrup- 
Castle and Amos Starr Cooke, who came to Hawaii in 1837 as 
members of a missionary company. In 1851 they got a "dis- 
mission" from their mission board and founded Castle & Cooke 
as a mercantile business, subsequently went into sugar. 

Alexander & Baldwin was founded in 1894 by Samuel T. 
Alexander and Henry P. Baldwin, both of missionary stock. 
Their fathers had started planting sugar cane a generation be- 
fore when the board of missions asked its clerics to try and get 
outside work to cut expenses. 

Around these five units grew an oligarchy, building up its 
power from generation to generation, intermarrying and sharing 
common business and social interests. Interlocking relationships 
pervaded the whole commercial fabric, linking the Big Five, 
the banks, the trust companies, ship lines, insurance firms, 
wholesale and retail outlets, hotels, public utilities, water and 
irrigation corporations. In this tight system of economic control,, 
power over land was essential, and much of the land was ad- 


ministered by the trustees of the great estates. Washington 
appointed territorial judges agreeable to the oligarchy and the 
judges in turn selected the estate trustees and reviewed their 
actions. Many of the leading families were philanthropically 
inclined, but the one possession they did not let go was business 
power. All the way from land to retail trade, control was ex- 
ercised in such fashion that the way was smoothed for the in- 
sider and made almost impassable for the "interloper," as Sears, 
Roebuck learned in its fight to break into Oahu retailing. 

A Distribution of Power 

Today Big Five companies are still linked with the two big- 
gest commercial banks, Hawaiian Electric Company, Matson 
Navigation Company, Hawaiian Telephone Company, and 
Honolulu Gas Company. And the Big Five still have inter- 
locking directors: Alexander & Baldwin has a director in common 
with both American Factors and Castle & Cooke, and another 
man sits on the boards of both C. Brewer and American Factors. 

By mainland standards this may seem like a considerable 
concentration of economic power, but not in the perspectives of 
Hawaii. It is a far cry indeed from the time when four of the 
Big Five executives held offices or directorships in thirty to forty 
Hawaiian enterprises or when fifteen officers or directors of Amer- 
ican Factors served as officers or directors of sixty-nine other 
Island companies. In the changed state of affairs, an American 
of Chinese descent, Chinn Ho, sits on the board of a major 
Hawaiian estate, that of Mark A. Robinson, the old prejudice 
against Oriental trustees finally going down in the face of a 
need for Oriental business acumen. And a more dynamic land 
policy is to be expected even from the Bishop Estate, which con- 
trols 15 per cent of all the land on Oahu, after last year's selec- 
tion of State Senator Richard Lyman, a part-Hawaiian, as a 
trustee. The pay differential between work done by haoles 
(Caucasians) and that done by Orientals has broken down, and 
the great white plantation houses are no longer being built. 
Remnants of paternalism endure primarily on some of the cattle 
ranches, where the hands seem quite content with a way of life 
modeled after the patrdn system of Spanish America, and on 
Niihau, "the Forbidden Island." Seventh largest of the Hawai- 


ian Islands, with an area of seventy-three square miles and a 
population of some 200, Niihau is 99.97 per cent owned by the 
Robinson family and run much as though King Kamehameha 
TV, the nineteenth century monarch from whom it was bought, 
were still on the throne. This April the Coast Guard had to 
send a carrier pigeon to ask residents to search the beaches for 
a missing transpacific flyer. (The answer: <c No strangers on 
island and we don't expect any.") Sampans are still the means 
by which the Islanders and their infrequent visitors make the 
rough seventeen-mile crossing to Kauai Today Niihau serves 
as an extreme example of the Hawaii that used to be. 

Natural Resource: Beauty 

If a single cause can be assigned to the change in the order 
of things Hawaiian, it is undoubtedly the stimulating jolt of 
tourism. When mainland greenbacks began to line Hawaiian 
pockets as never before, revitalizing the hotel business, touching 
off a building boom, and pushing land prices to new highs, ex- 
pectations went right up along with everything else. Even the 
most confirmed standpatter began to expect a great deal more 
of an economy he'd been happy to accept only a year earlier. 
In the light of new hopes there occurred a stocktaking that turned 
up some sobering as well as some heartening facts. 

The positive aspects of the Islands' economy are hard to 
categorize, being largely intangible. An advanced technology, 
great natural beauty, wonderful weather, and collective open- 
heartedness are not found in the usual lists of natural resources; 
nevertheless, their dollar value is tremendous. Hawaii has im- 
mense know-how in pineapple and sugar. In particular the 
research of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Association makes the 
state the world's most efficient cane producer, besides saving the 
plantations from pestilences that would have been ruinous. The 
scenery is magnificent: forests of fern and exotic trees like koa 
and monkeypod; valleys ablaze with orchids, bougainvillaea, 
torch ginger; angular emerald mountains jutting up from the 
surf, beaches of white sand or of glistening black lava, even 
jewel-strewn green ones of olivine; volcanoes crowned with fire 
and volcanoes capped with snow; waterfalls that plunge down- 
hill and one that runs uphill. The climate is an asset of great 


importance in an age when following the sun has become some- 
what of a compulsion. Kau, the word for season, has little 
excuse for being in the Hawaiian language: year-round agricul- 
ture is standard practice, the October tourist finds the same 
euphoric temperature as does the June arrival. 

The people are warmhearted, outgiving, hospitable, candid. 
Few indeed are the travelers who come away doubting the reality 
of the "aloha spirit," that contagious feeling of proportion, 
serenity, and comradeship that somehow transcends the discord- 
ances in Hawaiian society. "The new Hawaii," as a political 
scientist, Lawrence Fuchs, recently said, "is tolerant of new- 
comers as the old Hawaii was not The new Hawaii is a spirit, 
not a place." 

And finally there is Hawaii's geographical situation in the 
Pacific and its representation of many of the major east Asian 
races. This means more than just the westward extension of 
United States boundaries; the citizens of Hawaii have given 
the mainland a sense of identity with countries and peoples 
once completely alien. Firmer commercial and cultural ties 
with the Orient are likely to follow, the way smoothed by 
Oriental Hawaiians able to speak the Orient's own tongues. In 
the talking stage is a grand design to capitalize on Hawaii's po- 
tentialities as an East-West trade center by establishment of a 
free port in Honolulu. An East- West Cultural Center at the 
University of Hawaii, enthusiastically endorsed by the State 
Department, moved a step closer to realization this April when 
the Senate unanimously voted it into the mutual-security bill. 
[The Center began operations in October 1960. Ed.] 

Statistical Serpents in Eden 

The negative aspect of Hawaii's economy is to be found in 
such words as logistics and natural limitations. The island 
state is 2,400 miles distant from West Coast markets, 4,900 miles 
away from those on the Atlantic seaboard; freight rates are cor- 
respondingly burdensome. Visitors to the Islands, even those 
from California, have to fly nearly twice the average distance 
flown on a mainland vacation. As for natural limitations, the 
6,435 square-mile area of the Islands is small enough in itself, 
hut mountains, lava fields, and aridity make it even smaller: 


only 7.5 per cent is cropland. Consequently, Hawaii must im- 
port nearly two thirds of the food needed to sustain its present 
population, and that population is growing at a faster rate than 
Japan's. Land availability is already a major problem on Oahu,. 
which contains about four fifths of the people but has only a 
tenth of the state's area. Oahu now has a greater population 
density (864 per square mile) than Puerto Rico. Water avail- 
ability is becoming more or less a problem throughout Hawaii. 
On Oahu the success of a current water-resource development 
program will determine how big a population can be sustained 
there. On the Neighbor Islands, except Kauai, water scarcity 
on their leeward sides and the tremendous cost of bringing water 
from the wet, windward sides severely circumscribe agricultural 
development. These limitations are intensified by a dearth of 
raw materials and fuel. The Islands possess neither coal nor oil 
nor any mineral of consequence save possibly bauxite and 

The dollars that keep Hawaii's $1.6 billion economy bloom- 
ing are earned primarily in agriculture ($290 million), tourism 
($101 million), construction ($167 million), or defense ($338 
million). Tourism and defense both have the disadvantage of 
being vulnerable to circumstances beyond Hawaii's control: a 
mainland depression, or even a recession, could undermine the 
tourist industry in a hurry; defense budgets are volatile affairs 
made in Washington, not in Honolulu. Defense at present has 
a payroll of 50,000 uniformed personnel, 23,000 civilians, or 
one out of four workers in the labor force, more than any other 
single activity. As for the agricultural dollar earners, they have 
their own special problems. Consider the situations in coffee, 
cattle, pineapple, and sugar. 

Kona coffee, the only coffee produced in the States, is grown 
on the Big Island (Hawaii), mainly on a strip twenty-five miles 
long and two miles wide. A mountain species of fine flavor, it 
flourishes mainly at altitudes of 800 to 2,200 feet, getting essen- 
tial shade not from trees but from "coffee clouds," a cloud bank 
formed almost daily during the summer months. Production 
reached a peak of nearly 15 million pounds ($7.2 million) in 
1958, but the farmers, mostly Americans of Japanese descent 
working small leased plots of six acres or so, have been heading 
into trouble for some time. "It's hard for the boys to get a 


perspective of the problem," said Shoji Kawahara, a coffee 
fanner who plainly had the pitch. "The heart of the Kona 
farm is the family unit They do the picking. But families 
have been getting smaller. My father had eleven children; I 
have three. Help has to be hired at harvest time and that costs 
money. Then the farmers have been 'keeping up with the 
Tanakas/ buying two to three party dresses and $2,500 coffee 
dryers they could do without. With the drop in the price of 
'cherry 5 [coffee berries] it was 13 cents in 1955, now brings 
about 5 cents some are giving up their acreage. The trees are 
yellow from lack of fertilizer and the morning glories are tak- 
ing over." 

Lately the quality of Kona coffee has deteriorated under hasty 
processing. This unfortunately has occurred at a time when 
quality is on the rise in other producing areas, particularly those 
that turned to newer high-yield strains a few years back. In 
sum, the prospects of the industry are likely to worsen unless 
the fanners cut the costs of production, abandon the individual- 
ism that leads them to invest heavily in their personal processing 
facilities, and perhaps band together into a cooperative market- 
ing-and-processing organization. 

Home on the Lava Beds 

Hawaii's $10.6 million cattle business began in 1793, when 
Captain George Vancouver presented King Kamehameha I with 
a bull and a cow, along with sundry other livestock. The ani- 
mals were promptly declared kapu (taboo to kill) and had pro- 
liferated into wild herds of thousands by the mid-nineteenth 
century, when their immunity was revoked. Vaqueros from 
Mexico were brought in soon afterward to teach the Hawaiians 
"volcano ranching." Today Hawaiian cowboys call themselves 
paniolos, after the original espanoles, and herd 160,500 head of 
cattle on a million acres of range land. Richard Smart's 265,000- 
acre Parker Ranch, begun by a New England sailor back in the 
last century, is one of the biggest in the United States. But 
Hawaii's cattle ranges are often parched lava lands, cleared of 
brush by bulldozer chain, broken up and flattened by sugar-mill 
rollers so the cattle can get at the grass. To "grass-finish" beef 
in the Islands takes thirty to thirty-six months, a long way from 
the cattlemen's goal of twenty to twenty-two months. Feed-lot 


finishing, which has been tentatively tried in the past year, is 
very costly, for most feeds have to be imported. Yet without 
feed-lot finishing, Hawaii's cattle most go to market at lower 
weights and lower grades. "There's a $1.5 million Navy con- 
tract waiting for us," remarked a Maui rancher this March, "if 
we could just get our grades up from 'good' to 'choice.' " 

Pineapple, Hawaii's No. 2 export, is composed of nine vari- 
ously sized companies, the biggest, with over a third of the pack, 
being Dole (Hawaiian Pineapple Company). An all-time 
high was reached with the $124.3 million worth of exports in 
1958, and last year's volume was only $1.8 million lower. But 
the going is likely to be tougher from now on. The industry 
must pay a special 2 per cent "processing tax" on its gross in- 
come. Its plantations are confronted by rising land costs, and 
in some areas they face the withdrawal of leased pineapple lands 
for uses of greater value to the owners. On the mainland, a 
market that is more than 80 per cent supplied by Hawaii, there 
has been stiff competition from other fruits and juices, frozen 
and canned, plus some inroads by foreign pineapple. 

In the world market, currently accounting for about a tenth 
of the Islands' sales, the cheap labor, lower freight rates, and 
government subsidies of some foreign competitors are taking 
their toll. Hawaii's share of the world supply of solid-pack pine- 
apple has dropped from 75 per cent in 1946 to 69 per cent in 
1949 and 57 per cent in 1958. Malaya, Australia, South Africa, 
Mexico, and Formosa are gaining. Formosa and Hawaii are 
now neck and neck in West Germany, the biggest Continental 
market for canned pineapple. Each has something over 36 per 
cent of this market, where only three years ago the ratio was 
Hawaii 60 per cent, Formosa 26 per cent Last year Formosan 
pineapple was sold in West Germany for as much as 39 per cent 
less than the Hawaiian product. As the president of Hawaiian 
Pineapple, H. C. Cornuelle, told his stockholders at the last 
annual meeting: "Our quality will not carry us all the way if 
the cost differential between Hawaiian and foreign pineapple 

Sugar: More Lumps? 

Sugar, Hawaii's greatest export for well over eighty years, is 
produced by an industry now distinguished by highly efficient 


operation, diligent research, the world's highest wages for sugar 
workers in the fields ($12.80 a day), and small prospects for 
expansion. Currently it is being pinched by forces beyond its 
control: the rising cost of land throughout the state, and a land 
scarcity that in the opinion of at least one industrial planner may 
squeeze sugar out of Oahu by 1970. (This spring American 
Factors announced that 13,500 acres of sugar-cane landleased 
from the Bishop Estate by Oahu Sugar Company would be 
turned into a housing development touted as "the largest ever 
undertaken in the state of Hawaii.") In addition, Island sugar 
has yet to recover from the 1958 strike. This melancholy affair 
began so mildly that it was called the "aloha strike" in its early 
stages. But it soon turned into the most disastrous stoppage on 
record, thanks in good part to management's clumsy public re- 
lations. The four months' stoppage cut Hawaii's sugar produc- 
tion 29 per cent in 1958, and the interruption to the growing 
-cycle is expected to retard sugar output until the 1961 crop. 
'Several sugar companies, among them Ewa Plantation, Oahu 
Sugar, Pioneer Mill, Kahuku Plantation, McBryde Sugar, and 
Kekaha Sugar, were still in the red in 1959. But when Island 
sugar does get back to normal it cannot hope for much more 
than a sales increase geared to U.S. population growth. "If 
we want to grow and expand in the sugar business," declared 
Boyd MacNaughton, president of C Brewer & Company, "we 
have to do it outside Hawaii and the U.S." C. Brewer, signifi- 
cantly, is in the process of setting up a 25,000-acre sugar planta- 
tion in Iran. And this year Sugar International was formed by 
C. Hutton Smith of American Factors (Hawaii's biggest sugar 
agency) with Hawaiian Dredging & Construction Co. and J. H. 
Pomeroy & Company to establish a Hawaiian-style sugar in- 
dustry in rapidly developing countries such as the Sudanese 

Islanders Out, Mainlanders In 

The sugar industry's new interest in production outside the 
Islands calls attention to one of the most important changes 
taking place in Hawaii: a general breaking of the invisible bar- 
riers that had isolated Hawaiian business. Hawaiian Dredging 
is already doing 50 per cent of its business overseas, singly or 
jointly working on upwards of $150 million worth of contracts 


from Japan to Kuwait. Declared founder Walter Dillingham: 
"We've already done the big jobs in the Islands, and we now 
think of the dredging business as world-wide. There's better 
potential for it in the Middle East, where we're already operat- 
ing." Hawaiian Airlines' imaginative young president, Arthur 
Lewis, has a plan to make the new state the center of a system 
fanning out all over the Pacific; if the proposition wins CAB 
approval, and it should, Hawaii may become even more of a 
"political and intellectual bridge" between Asia and the United 
States mainland than it is today. And, increasingly, Hawaii's 
peripatetic businessmen have been sniffing out business oppor- 
tunities in Japan, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. 

While some Island enterprises have been reaching out of 
Hawaii for larger opportunities, mainland business has been 
reaching in. Mainland capital is destined to have a profound 
influence on Hawaii, and very soon. "By 1965," predicted an 
astute Island financier this April, "mainland capital will be in 
control here, with an ownership of over 50 per cent." The stake 
of U.S. insurance companies in Hawaii is already $200 million, 
twelve times the $17 million of 1948. Standard Oil of Cali- 
fornia has invested more than $60 million in a new refinery, part 
of which will go on stream this fall. Sheraton bought Matson's 
four once-faltering hotels the Moana, Surf Rider, Royal Hawai- 
ian, and Princess Kaiulani last June for $18 million. (One 
difference between the two managements is indicated by this 
little fact: Sheraton now sells for $400 a month the hotel gar- 
bage Matson paid to have hauled away.) Two mainland cor- 
porations, American Cement and Cyprus Mines, are the prime 
backers of a $12 million cement plant (Hawaiian Cement Cor- 
poration) to be in operation this summer. Kaiser's Permanente 
Cement Company has almost finished its own $13.5 million in- 
stallation on Oahu, and Kaiser's huge Hawaii Kai development 
is owned by Kaiser Industries (1959 assets: $322 million). The 
Big Five appeared enormous when they were the only frogs in 
the puddle; but now that the Big Five, none of which has assets 
of more than $56 million, are being compared to mainland busi- 
ness, their size suddenly seems to shrink. Moreover, ownership 
of even the Big Five is changing; two thirds of the stock of 
C. Brewer & Company, for instance, is held by mainlanders. 


In future changes, mainland manpower will be almost as im- 
portant as mainland capital. Indeed, it has already had an im- 
portant impact on Hawaii, replacing some managers who owed 
their jobs to the old school lei with professional management. 
Rudolph Peterson, fresh from the customer-pleasing tradition of 
Transamerica Corporation, took hold of the haolefied Bank of 
Hawaii, shook it into an awareness of its opportunities. In four 
years he more than doubled net profits, increased deposits by 
two thirds (1959: $303 million). The Honolulu Advertiser, a 
metropolitan daily with a provincial outlook and a plant so 
antique that heads were set by hand, was stimulated back to 
health and usefulness in a little over a year by George Chaplin, 
who had been editor of the New Orleans Item. Oregonian 
Boyd MacNaughton became the first mainlander to head up 
C. Brewer & Company the first mainlander, that is, without 
family connections in the Islands. His performance over the 
past four years in Brewer's No. 1 spot speaks well for the change: 
the company's plantations are now considered the most efficient 
in Hawaii. 

The Movers from Within 

The rise of mainland influence in Island affairs, however, 
should not obscure the fact that a number of bright and dy- 
namic individuals, Hawaiian by birth or adoption, are also 
effectively reshaping the fiftieth state from within. [State] 
Senator O. Vincent Esposito and House Majority Leader Thomas 
Gill have been pressing vigorously to reduce the concentration 
of landownership, particularly on Oahu. A legislative program 
to force the big estates to disgorge land by threatening con- 
demnation failed to pass last year, although a watered-down 
condemnation law is now on the books. But the support land 
reform did get was enough to cause some speedup by the big 
estates in putting more leasehold homesites on the market. On 
the bench, the new state supreme court (its first chief justice: 
Wilfred C. Tsukiyama) can be expected to exercise closer super- 
vision of the land owned by estates than the old territorial su- 
preme court. Such supervision might even induce Hawaii's 
biggest single landowner, the Bishop Estate, to hire a profes- 
sional planner for its acreage, holdings worth $6 million fust 
after the war and $120 million today. In the cultural field, 


Dr. Alex Spoehr has made the Bishop Museum both an im- 
portant entomological research center and the world's best as- 
semblage of Polynesian and Hawaiian artifacts; George Barati 
has built up the Honolulu Symphony from a tiny orchestra with 
a 1950 budget of $25,000 to eighty-six members and a budget of 
$178,500. In the world of business, where the change has been 
most sweeping, three men typify the internal influences bringing 
about Hawaii's new look: Chinn Ho, Walter Dillingham, and 
Henry Kaiser. 

Fast Decisions in the Hui 

Chinn Ho, fifty-six, is representative of a group of high- 
powered Oriental entrepreneurs (his grandfather was a Chinese 
farmer) who started out with nothing and now head syndicates 
(huis) of size and importance. It was partially through huis 
that the Islands' Chinese got their first toehold in real estate: 
during World War II they were ready with cash to snap up the 
land that some haole families, alarmed by the possibility of in- 
vasion, had put on the market. Chinn Ho first broke tradition 
by being the first Chinese to trade on the Honolulu Stock Ex- 
change and seems to have been breaking some sort of record 
ever since. The capital of Chinn's huis, like all others, is 
contributed by hundreds of individuals looking for a faster 
turnover than they could reasonably get from investment 
in ordinary securities. With a free hand in the management 
of his huis, Chinn has snapped up many opportunities ignored 
by Hawaii's older, entrenched wealth. His Capital Investment 
Company and subsidiaries had assets of $1.2 million in 1947, are 
now worth an impressive $25 million. A dozen enterprises, main- 
ly in Hawaiian real estate, are doing very well indeed, as is a 
joint venture with Louis Perini to develop 2,200 acres of land 
on the outskirts of San Francisco. Chinn prides himself on fast 
decisions, high-leverage investments, and calculated risks. A 
few years back he bought 9,150 acres of sugar-cane land from 
Waianae Company for $1.25 million, soon sold 4,000 acres of 
it for more than $6 million, has watched the remaining acreage 
steadily increase in value. This year two West Coast developers 
got an option on $7 million worth of waterfront property 
adjacent to Waikiki and announced they were going to build a 
$15 million cooperative apartment hotel on it. Chinn, im- 


pressed by the public response to the proposition, moved in fast 
and bought up their option. There was not even a plan of the 
building, but within ten days of the announcement prospective 
owners had plunked down $100 deposits for over seven hundred 
of the one thousand apartments in the first unit. Chirm's sharp 
pencil figures there'll be an appreciation in the value of the land 
of $2.5 million upon construction of the first unit (which would 
occupy less than half the acreage). If he exercises his right to 
take a position on the building as well the tenants will put 
$12.5 million of their money into that leaving only $5 million 
to be borrowed then the profit on the first-unit land and build- 
ing should run between $5 million and $7 million. Small 
wonder that Lowell Dillingham, Walter Dillingham's eldest 
son and the fast-moving president of Hawaiian Dredging (1959 
assets: $18 million) should have remarked in February: "We've 
all missed the boat in land development. Local moneyed in- 
terests could have done the developing that mainlanders and 
the huis are doing. The Big Five have plenty of land but they've 
been so busy trying to keep the sugar industry in a profitable 
position they haven't had time or effort or money for much else." 

Uncle Walter's Still Going Strong 

Walter Dillingham, eighty-five, personifies quite a different 
sort of business influence, though one much admired by Chinn 
and other rising businessmen, for Dillingham also abhors in- 
active wealth. Born in the Islands, the son of a Gape Cod 
schooner captain, urbane, vigorous, astute, "Uncle Walter" has 
always been a man to reckon with whether on the polo field 
(he played with sons Lowell, Ben, and Gaylord until he was 
sixty) or in business. The key Dillingham company is Hawai- 
ian Dredging, begun with $5,000 of borrowed capital in 1902. 
Since that time it has literally made much of Honolulu, opening 
up Pearl Harbor, reclaiming Waikiki from the swamp that 
isolated it, pumping up the coral to provide Jim Dole with a site 
for an early pineapple cannery and the International Airport 
with runways for its planes in all adding some five thousand 
acres of new land, the lion's share of the made ground on which 
roughly a third of Honolulu stands. Land and industrial de- 
velopment followed Dillingham suburbs like Wailupe, and 


Dillingham deepwater docks, towboats, barges, a big trucking 
company (Oahu Transport, ably run by close associate John 
Walker), a spreading out into sugar (Dillingham is a director of 
American Factors) and into banking (he is chairman of the 
Bank of Hawaii). 

With such a diversity of interests, Dillingham has had a 
pervasive influence on Hawaiian business. He has survived 
numerous skirmishes with Matson and so successfully fought 
the Big Five that at one time he was known as the Big Sixth. 
But by and large, he has been a force driving from within the 
prevailing order of things, rather than one functioning in- 
dependently of it. Last year, however, a single Dillingham 
project shifted Honolulu's whole axis of retail trade. The im- 
mense new Ala Moana center, a $30 million complex of smart 
shops and big stores (Sears, Wool worth's, Foodland), in effect 
established a new downtown for Honolulu, supplanting the old, 
traffic-choked commercial section. Annual sales are expected 
to reach $40 million, possibly $50 million, compared to $70 mil- 
lion for the downtown district. 

The Courtship of Henry Kaiser 

At the opposite pole of the Hawaiian business world from 
Walter Dillingham, opposite in temperament, method, and 
outlook, is Henry Kaiser. Kaiser's love affair with Hawaii be- 
gan in earnest in 1954 when he saw droves of tourists being 
turned away from the few hotels on Waikiki. No more room 
for hotels on Waikiki beach, he was told, so no more room for 
tourists. By the following year Kaiser and his community- 
building partner Fritz B. Burns had become Waikikfs biggest 
private landowners and the Kaiser-Burns Development Corpora- 
tion was hard at work turning twenty acres of slums into a 
resort center (Hawaiian Village) with a two-thousand-foot man- 
made beach. The Honolulu Advertiser correctly observed at the 
time that a milestone in Hawaiian history was "marked by the 
entry into these Islands of Henry Kaiser." Within six years 
Kaiser has built the Hawaiian Village, a nine-hundred-room 
$15 million hotel complex, the $4 million Kaiser Foundation 
Medical Center, the $13.5 million cement plant, and established 
radio station KHVH and television station KHVH-TV. This 


year finds him erecting a $5 million addition to the Hawaiian 
Village with one hand and with the other working away at 
Hawaii Kai, billed as a $350 million resort "city 5 * some twenty 
minutes from Waikiki. 

Inevitably Henry Kaiser's zealous and jealous courtship of 
Hawaii has stirred up one storm after another. When a top 
businessman first heard of Hawaii Kai he exclaimed in anger and 
amazement: "My God, he's outflanking us at Waikiki." When 
United Air Lines flew in a press party in a new DC-8, to publi- 
cize the California-Hawaii jet service it would begin in mid- 
March, Kaiser stole the headlines with an announcement he 
himself was trying to charter or buy "one or more jet planes to 
take care of the emergency needs I see growing worse." When 
the Advertiser ventured to ask editorially what was going to 
happen to the homes and leaseholds of a number of families in 
the path of the Hawaii Kai development (which will occupy 
six thousand acres of Oahu's precious land), Kaiser reacted like 
a Bourbon monarch whose divine right had been questioned, 
calling the editors cowards, liars, anti-progress, and participants 
in a "stop Kaiser" movement. And, of course, Kaiser very soon 
indicated that the Islands were now too small for both himself 
and Hawaii's Grand Old Man, Walter Dillmgham. 

The conflict started with the announcement that a new com- 
pany, Hawaiian Cement Corporation, was going to set up a 
$12 million plant, using Oahu coral as its raw material. Main- 
land interests (American Cement and Cyprus Mines) were going 
to supply the know-how and most of the money, Dillingham and 
Bechtel Corporation would build it as a joint venture. Kaiser 
immediately announced that he too was going to build a big 
cement plant. Before very long Dillingham was growling that 
Kaiser men were out buying up coral outcroppings to deprive 
Hawaiian's prospective plant of raw material. Kaiser, for his 
part, accused the Dillinghams of underhanded tactics in trying 
to keep his plant site zoned against "noxious industry." Dilling- 
ham, in face-to-face debate, dismissed Kaiser as "a visitor here," 
only to have the visitor invade the dredging business with a 
million dollars' worth of equipment What makes this affair 
interesting, however, is economics, not histrionics. Both cement 
plants will be in operation this year [I960]. The two plants 
can produce 2.7 million barrels of cement, almost three times 


the amount Pennanente has been shipping in and more than 
double the estimated 1.1 million barrels now being absorbed in 
Hawaii. Something is certain to give, but each group is sure it 
will be the other. "If we have to cut price," said Kaiser recently, 
"we'll cut it. That's how I broke into the cement business back 
in the late thirties." 

Too Much, Too Soon? 

What^ all this suggests is that Hawaii's most immediate 
problem is one of maintaining proper balance. Two big cement 
plants plunked down at the same time in a pocket market is as 
much a promise of trouble as of progress. And not surprisingly, 
the building boom is the source of other storm signals. The 
Islands' leading economist, James Shoemaker of the Bank of 
Hawaii, called attention in January to the fact that the pace of 
construction 1959 more than doubling the annual level of only 
four years ago had outdistanced both population and consumer 
buying power. An executive of a chain of co-op apartment hotels 
was worried about quality: "Some construction Is very careless. 
We shouldn't take advantage of the boom and start building 
flimsy construction in the outlying areasit would deaden the 
atmosphere for Hawaii." More recently, Honolulu's Bishop Street 
bankers have been voicing concern over the rash of cooperative 
apartments. The First National Bank and the Bank of Hawaii 
will accept construction mortgages on co-ops. But once the build- 
ing is finished these banks do not want the mortgage, and some- 
one else, often a mainland insurance company, takes over. 

Looking at Hawaii from the perspective of almost forty years, 
Alva E. Steadman, board chairman of the Cooke Trust Company 
and vice chairman of the Bank of Hawaii, observed this March: 

I think we're going too fast and I don't see any effective brakes. The 
boom has all the elements of dangerous explosiveness. The real-estate 
men are scared to death to make an appraisal for fear somebody else 
will say the property's worth twice that. People are even buying a 
chunk of volcano on the Big Island for $895 a lot. I don't believe any- 
body can predict where Hawaii's going. Most of the supermarkets are 
undercapitalized. A baking company of which I'm president has had to 
let some supermarkets take sixty days to settle their bills. They're using 
our money as working capital in a total amount of $300,000 $50,000 to 
one supermarket alone. This shows how much of the boom is on credit 
We have four more stores now than eighteen months ago, yet gross 


sales are no greater than eighteen months ago. Imagine what that does 
to profits 1 Some will go broke, but that won't solve anything. What in 
hell can anyone else do with a used supermarket?" 

Prudent Prospects of Growth 

The long and short of it would seem to be that from now on 
the change in Hawaii should be selective change. If the Islands 
let their enthusiasm sweep them into overbuilding, a recession 
would hit Hawaii hard. Even though tourism is incontrovertibly 
the best hope of the fiftieth state, better a little scarcity than two 
rooms for every tourist At the same time, no delay is tolerable 
in a prudent expansion of tourism to the Neighbor Islands, par- 
ticularly Maui, Kauai, and Hawaii, nor in making the most of 
today's circumstances. The six-hundred-mile-- an-hour jet is cur- 
rently working for the Islands, bringing tourists there in half 
the nine hours required by piston aircraft; the big trick is getting 
them to stay for longer periods of time and capturing for Hawaii's 
tourist industry a bigger proportion of the travelers using the 
Islands merely as a stopover. Now would seem to be the time to 
maximize Hawaii's attractions, before tomorrow's great-circle 
routes across the Pacific invite bypassing the Islands. 

In the past Hawaii has had a way of making even the most 
ebullient forecasts look bearish. In booming 1955 the best pre- 
dictions were that 170,000 tourists would come in 1959 and drop 
$88 million. Today's projections for the next decade population 
up 44 per cent to 950,000, gross state product up about 56 per cent 
to $2.5 billion, upwards of a million tourists spending $573 mil- 
lion a year these could look just as conservative when 1970 rolls 
around. Having come so far, Hawaii cannot afford to falter now. 
And certainly the rest of the nation cannot afford to have it fal- 
ter. Where else can mainlanders find so marvelous a combina- 
tion of Yankee ingenuity and grit, Oriental industry and perse- 
verance, a Christian ethic warmed and enlivened by the good will 
and good humor of the Pacific? Nowhere else is it possible for 
them to feel so at ease among the Pacific races, whose members 
are proud to be "first-class citizens" of the republic. Hawaii has 
the faculty of making even the most moribund mainlander come 
alive. Sooner or later such a happy awareness will comprehend 
that Hawaii has also made us partners in the vast world of the 

V. OF 


If the people of the new states were asked to list their major 
state problems, they might well rank defense at the top. The 
defense problem has what might be termed a double-barreled 
effect. On the one hand, both Alaska and Hawaii are con- 
tinental outposts in vulnerable and exposed geographic positions. 
Alaska, particularly, is but a short drive across the arctic ice to 
Soviet Siberia, and her hundreds of miles of coastline remain 
open and, for the most part, undefended. 

On the other hand, military spending has become a key eco- 
nomic prop for both states. Defense expenditures by the Federal 
Government are the leading source of income in Alaska and 
Hawaii, and any talk of a military cutback sends shivers through 
the congressional delegations from both states in Washington. 
In two important ways, therefore, the nation's defenses are 
crucially tied to the fortunes of our most recent states. 

In the first article in this final section Hanson W. Baldwin, 
the noted military affairs analyst, raises some disturbing ques- 
tions about the defense posture of the forty-ninth state. The 
questions are pursued by Senator Ernest Gruening and the late 
Senator Richard L. Neuberger, in the second article, which makes 
a plea for greater military attention to Alaska. The third article 
describes Alaska's defense posture as of the end of 1962. The 
concluding article outlines Hawaii's stake in defense spending. 


Is Alaska gigantic promontory of North America, closest 
United States soil to Soviet Russia and newly created state a 
strategic asset or a liability? 

In Fairbanks and Anchorage and in the bleak, snow-swept 
streets of Nome, Alaska's sparse population does not spend much 
time on this question; instead, the size of the anticipated salmon 

1 From ''Communique from our Alaskan Outpost," by Hanson W. Baldwin, New 
York Times military affairs analyst. New York Times Magazine, p 12+. Mr. 15, '59. 
Copyright by The New York Times. Reprinted by permission. 


catch and the new state legislature's pay scales are of more 
immediate interest. 

But at Elmendorf Air Force Base near . . . [Anchorage] 
headquarters of Lieutenant General Frank A. Armstrong, Jr., 
Commander in Chief, Alaska; at Colorado Springs, headquarters 
of the North American Air Defense Command; at Strategic Air 
Command headquarters near Omaha, and in the Pentagon, the 
strategic importance of Alaska and its strengths and weaknesses 
are again under debate. 

Geographically, Alaska's key position is evident from a glance 
at any map. The peninsula and its long chain of the Aleutian 
Islands dominate the great-circle shipping and air routes across 
the North Pacific. Alaska on one flank and Greenland on the 
other are sentinels for warning, ramparts for defense and ad- 
vanced bases for counterattack for the North American continent. 

Soviet bases in the Chukchi (Chukotski) Peninsula, which 
is separated by only fifty-five miles of ice-choked Bering Strait 
from mainland Alaska, are closer by 1,000 miles to the Chicago- 
Detroit industrial region than any other Russian base. Alaska 
is a dominant area in the "polar concept" of strategy attack 
and defense through the air across the top of the world. 

But the acknowledged geographic importance of Alaska is 
offset, in the minds of some strategists, by two disadvantages. 

First, some point out that it is far away from the center of 
Soviet industrial-military power, which is in European Russia, 
not in Siberia. But this objection loses meaning as modern 
weapons achieve almost limitless ranges. (It is only 4,100 air 
miles from Fairbanks to Moscow and an intercontinental ballistic 
missile, emplaced at Fairbanks, could reach any part of Russia or 
China, as well as Western Europe) . 

The second adverse entry in Alaska's strategic balance sheet 
is the nature of the country frigid cold and shrieking winds, 
inaccessible and unexplored wilds, high costs, difficult supply 
problems and primitive communications. 

There is no doubt that Alaska the land, the climate, the 
environment presents some major problems in military develop- 
ment. Alaska has about one fifth the area of the . . . forty-eight 
[mainland] states and it is separated from all of them. It has 
virtually no industry, very few roads, and its one railroad is 
hundreds of miles from the Canadian system to the south. The 


Alaska Highway, 1,523 miles long, extending from the end of the 
Canadian highway system at Dawson Creek to Fairbanks, is the 
only land link with the continental states, and it is a gravel road, 
with limited capacity. . . . 

Eskimos in Alaska's two unique National Guard scout bat- 
talions are equipped with M-l rifles and Army radios and they 
do their forty-eight drills a year and their "summer" camp in 
March. But to many of them military terminology in English 
may be difficult and to explain it in Eskimo may be even more 
difficult, for the language contains no exact words for such 
military terms as "tanks" or "tracks." So the instructor, describ- 
ing what a tank is, uses Eskimo symbolism: "A tank is a walrus 
with a tin can around it on wheels only they are not really 

Like Russia, Alaska is a contrast between the most primitive 
and the most advanced, between extremes of heat and cold, snow 
and rainfall, wind and sun a wilderness, the last frontier, . . . 
a land that once before, in World War II, was a base for more 
than 100,000 troops and ferry route for planes to Russia. 

So the problems of rugged wilderness, inadequate communica- 
tions, primitive living, high costs and extreme climate have been 
solved before, are being solved today, can be solved tomorrow. 
But a psychological barrier, compounded in part of fact but in 
part of legend, of fear, of ignorance, has hampered the full 
military exploitation of Alaska's strategic position. 

This is a land with but few people perhaps a quarter of a 
million all told, including some 34,000 men of the armed services, 
6,500 civil service employees working for the military, and 33,000 
military dependents. Most of the people are crowded around the 
panhandle area, or Anchorage, Alaska's largest city, or Fairbanks. 
For endless mile on mile there is nobody. 

This is a land with some 33,000 miles of seacoast, guarded by 
one of the world's most complete radar lines but actually "pro- 
tected" along its ground periphery only by one thousand Eskimo, 
Indian and Aleut scouts. 

Alaska, in military terminology, is an "overseas theater," 
with a single unified commander General Armstrong over all 
the armed services. But General Armstrong, unlike other theater 
commanders, has few forces he can call his own; it has been 
said of him that he is the only lieutenant general in the Air 


Force who commands only two Army battle groups. The two 
reinforced battle groups four thousand men are the principal 
ground combat forces of the Army in Alaska and only the Army 
comes clearly and unequivocally under the command of 
"CINCAL" (Commander in Chief, Alaska). 

The Navy's Alaskan Sea Frontier, with headquarters at 
Kodiak and an outer base at bleak Adak in the Aleutians, is 
"responsive" to "CINCAL," but its operating forces (twelve naval 
patrol planes and a handful of small ships in peacetime) come 
under operational control of the Commander in Chief, Pacific, 
in peace and war. The Air Force maintains only two combat 
squadrons one reinforced or some sixty fighter-interceptor 
planes in all Alaska. But "CINCAL" does not control them; 
General Armstrong wears another hat as Alaskan regional com- 
mander for the North American Air Defense Command and as 
such he operates them for Colorado Springs. 

Nor does "CINCAL" have any oflensive power. The only 
missiles in Alaska are two battalions of Nike-Hercules anti- 
aircraft defensive missiles, which have just been emplaced around 
Fairbanks and Anchorage. The only bombers in Alaska 
normally about twelve or fourteen B-47's belong to the Strategic 
Air Command and are rotated to Elmendorf and Eielson Air 
Force Bases for about two weeks' alert status from home bases in 
the West and Southwest. "CINCAL" provides them with support 
and security. 

Alaska's strategic concept today is fundamentally defensive. 
There are only two important target complexes or basic military 
objectives in the state: the Fairbanks area with the Ladd-Eielson 
airfields near by, and the Anchorage area, with Elmendorf field 
and Fort Richardson. These areas are regarded as "stationary 
aircraft carriers in a sea of tundra"; the insular concept of defense 

These areas, and these only, will be defended. All the rest of 
the military apparatus in Alaska exists for two other fundamental 
purposes: to provide early warning of enemy attack to the United 
States and to provide one 14,600-foot runway at Eielson and the 
necessary support for SAC's twelve bombers. . . . 

But Alaska's defense, as such, is simply enough to prevent 
the enemy from "taking a Sunday ride." The Russians could 
saturate our control system, overwhelm Anchorage and Fairbanks 


with weight of numbers. No defense, as such, can prevent this. 
Alaska, like all the rest of the world (but even more so because 
of its proximity to forward Soviet bases) has and can have no 
real defense in the strict meaning of the term in the age of 
hydrogen weapons, jet aircraft and missiles. Its only real defense 
today is offense and Alaska has no offense of its own, only 
SAC's twelve bombers, their objectives deep in the heart of 
Russia, not the forward Soviet bases in the Chukchi Peninsula 
which frown across the Bering Strait. ... 

Yet Alaska is an ideal site for intermediate-range ballistic 
missiles, or even for intercontinental ballistic missiles. One or 
two missiles on the bleak and unpopulated outer Aleutians 
zeroed in on Petropavlovsk could neutralize that threat forever. 
A squadron deep in the Alaskan Range, or near Kotzebue back 
in a fold of the hills could provide far more defense, not only 
for Alaska, but also for the continental United States, than all 
of Alaska's fighter planes and early-warning radar. The Soviet 
Chukchi bases would no longer be a "dagger" extended toward 
our continent 


MR. GRUENING: Mr. President, the New York Times yester- 
day printed a letter signed by the two Senators from Alaska and 
the Alaska Representative in the House taking issue with state- 
ments in an article published by the New York Times 9 military 
expert, Hanson W, Baldwin. . . . Mr. President, Mr. Baldwin 
had stated that only the important military areas in Alaska 
around Fairbanks and Anchorage would be defended in the 
event of a shooting war. Apparently the rest of Alaska and its 
people would be left undefended. The Alaska delegation felt 
that it could not allow so mischievous and unwarranted a state- 
ment to go unchallenged, and therefore communicated its views 
to the Secretary of Defense Neil McElroy, asking him for 
confirmation or correction of this statement for the record. 

Secretary McElroy's reply was gratifyingly categorical, to the 
effect that "there is no military plan in existence, and none has 
been considered, which contemplates or accepts the concept that 

s Frorn "Military Defense of Alaska," remarks on the United States Senate floor by 
Senator Ernest Greening (Democrat, Alaska) and the late Senator Richard L. Neuberger 
(Democrat, Oregon), April 27, 1959. Congressional Record. 105:6818-19. Ap. 27, '59. 


the United States would fail to defend any and all of our 
sovereign territory and that includes, of course, Alaska as an 
integral part." This correspondence was printed in the magazine 
section of the New York Times . . . yesterday, April 26, 1959, 
together with a reply by Mr. Baldwin, to whom the New York 
Times quite properly accorded the privilege of replying to 
Secretary McElroy. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Baldwin compounded his error by a 
concluding statement in which he alluded to the "potential 
danger" that 

A small-scale enemy attack somewhere on the periphery of Alaska 
might well create such a political and psychological uproar that it 
would create a costly and wasteful military diversion as did the Japanese 
on the Aleutians during World War II. 

Mr. President, the fact is that what Mr. Baldwin calls a 
"costly and wasteful military diversion 55 namely, the expulsion 
of the Japanese, after their occupation of Attu and Kiska Islands 
would never have occurred if the Federal Government, includ- 
ing successive Congresses, had sensed the military and strategic 
importance of Alaska, and had provided the necessary defenses 

The story of the military neglect of Alaska is long; and, al- 
though I am familiar with it, it need not be told here. . . . My 
point in bringing up this matter today in connection with the 
correspondence which was published in yesterday's New York 
Times is that I continue to feel very strongly that the defenses 
of Alaska are as yet by no means what they should be. In the 
course of the last few years, the United States has built a 
tremendous number of bases all over the world. They have 
been built at great cost. Many of them are of extremely dubious 
value. No doubt they were calculated risks when they were 
planned and represented the best thinking of our military au- 
thorities at the time when they were established. But there is no 
question that today our tenure of a great many of these foreign- 
based establishments is highly uncertain. There is uncertainty 
about whether we shall be able to maintain them, even during 
the cold war, in the face of opposition from the governments of 
the countries where the United States bases are located; and 
this uncertainty applies even in the case of countries which are 
manifestly friendly, and whose people we count as belonging to 


the free world. In other cases, in the case of countries less free, 
there is little question that Uncle Sam is being blackmailed, if 
that may not be too harsh a word, for the right to keep those 
bases there. If that is too harsh a word, let me say that Uncle 
Sam is obliged to pay through the nose. There is the further 
question of whether, with the changing technology of war, these 
bases have the value that was ascribed to them when they were 

With the rapid change in the methods of warfare, the validity 
of these bases, I think, deserves careful reexamination by the 
Congresses and by the military authorities. 

But I wish to point out that whatever defenses we build in 
Alaska, we build on the firm rock of United States terrain and 
within the security of a 100 per cent loyal American people. 
What is built in Alaska is not liable to sabotage, subversion, or 
other adverse factors which exist in the case of many oversea 
bases. Alaska's defense should be fully reconsidered, so as to 
make the forty-ninth state what is an important part of its 
destiny namely, to be a bulwark of defense for the North 
American continent, and thereby for the whole free world. 

I repudiate the notion that defending a square foot of Amer- 
ican soil is costly and wasteful. But it is much better to have 
the defenses and potential offenses in such shape that no 
enemy will be tempted, as were the Japanese, to invade any part 
of our nation. . . . 

MR. NEUBERGER: I have been listening with great interest to 
the discussion of our defenses generally, and those of Alaska 
particularly, by the . . . [able Senator] from Alaska. Of course, 

I was especially interested because during much of World War 

II I was stationed in the Alaska theater of war, as the eminent 
junior Senator from Alaska knows, because at that time he was 
the governor of Alaska. I believe he served as governor of the 
territory of Alaska longer than anyone in Alaska's territorial 

But the point which I wish to make and which I think is 
important is this. Reference was made to the New York Times. 
This morning there commenced, on the front pages of the New 
York Times, a most informative series of articles of what the 
writer has seen in his travels through Siberia. He describes there- 
in vast developments occurring in Siberia in terms of hydroelectric 


power, railroad construction, highway construction, industrial 
plants, and an entire, impressive, vast program, which he discusses. 

Siberia is opposite Alaska at Bering Strait. If any conflict ever 
occurs at the roof of the globe, and we pray it will not, it will 
occur, so far as geography is concerned, between the state of 
Alaska and Siberia, because at Bering Strait they nearly touch. 
On a clear day one can see the low headlands of Siberia looming 
out of the bay, as the Senators from Alaska so well know. 

It seems to me the articles which are starting in the New 
York Times emphasize that what has been done in Siberia by the 
Soviet Union, through vast expenditures of money and resources, 
should stimulate us in the Senate and the other body of Congress 
and the President of the United States to bring about a similar 
program of development in Alaska. Alaska needs roads, highways, 
a railway connection with the United States, and great hydro- 
electric power projects to tap such rivers as the Yukon and other 
great streams which could provide industrial development. 

I think the series of articles on Siberia should encourage the 
Government of the United States to follow Russia's lead, and 
proceed to develop Alaska, which has not yet been done. 


Militarily Alaska has been called the "forgotten land." 
Strategically, Alaska is the first line of defense for North 
America for any possible Soviet-launched aggression. 

This strange paradox has led to a controversial approach to 
the military problems that face the largest state in the Union. 

Hanson Baldwin, military writer for the New York Times, 
early this year noted that "Alaska, the forty-ninth state, and 
the closest United States "real estate' to the Soviet Union is 
something of a military stepchild." 

There are nearly 34,000 uniformed men scattered throughout 
Alaska, representing all services. With their dependents they 
number about 77,000 out of a total population of 227,000 persons. 

Military posts are located in all parts of the state, stretching 
from the now famed DEW Line in the arctic to a Coast Guard 
unit at Ketchikan. 

8 From "Strategically, Alaska Is First Defense Line." Fairbanks Daily News-Miner 
(Progress Edition), p 32C. N. 28, '62. Reprinted by permission. 


But except for a number of transient nuclear-armed Strategic 
Air Command bombers, and an occasional Polaris submarine 
operating off the Alaskan coast, the nearest state to Russia does 
not have a great deal of offensive potential. 

This "defense only" attitude on the part of national military 
planners has not been without controversy. The first official to 
promote the need for offensive bases in Alaska was the late Gen- 
eral Billy Mitchell, who was subsequently court-martialed for his 
beliefs in air power, and his attitudes toward higher command 

The last person to speak out for offensive weapons in Alaska 
was General Frank Armstrong, World War II hero, and former 
commander of all forces in Alaska. He was rumored to have 
gotten a premature retirement slightly over a year ago for his 

The present Alaska Command Commander-in-Chief is Lieu- 
tenant General George W. Mundy, like Armstrong an Air Force 
officer and World War II hero. 

Soon after the general took command last year, two very 
strong rumors regarding offensive power circulated throughout 
the state. 

The first concerned the building of a nuclear submarine base 
in southeastern Alaska, and the other regarded construction of 
Atlas Missile launching sites here. 

The Air Force admitted that it had inspection teams looking 
over Alaska to find Atlas sites, but to this date none have officially 
been programed. 

The nuclear submarine base was programed for an island in 
the mid-Pacific Ocean. 

Meantime, Alaska remains the best outpost and warning 
station the continental United States has ever maintained. 

First fixed line of warning is the DEW Line, a multimillion- 
dollar series of radar stations strung along the Arctic Coast. 
This is backed up with military aircraft warning sites, operated 
by the Air Force. 

Supplementing the electronic sites are the eyes and ears of 
several thousand Eskimo scouts, who report all strange happen- 
ings along the northern and western periphery of the state. 


The communication key to the radar stations is White Alice, 
a system of sites that can speed messages over most of North 
America in a matter of seconds. 

To warn against missiles there is the giant Ballistic Missile 
Early Warning Site at Clear, on the Alaska Railroad. The Air 
Force also operates the Donnelly Dome Satellite Tracking 
Station, near Big Delta. 

There is also extensive and sensitive warning type sites located 
at Shemya, an island near the far tip of the Aleutian Chain. 

To back up the fixed stations, the Air Force and Navy also 
operate round-the-clock flying radar stations. The famed U-2 
plane is also known to operate out of Alaska from time to time. 

To put teeth into the extensive warning system, there are two 
forward fighter plane bases in Alaska. These are located at 
King Salmon and Galena. 

Less than a year ago there were only about forty jet fighter 
planes stationed in the state, placed at the forward bases and 
Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage. 

The fighters are supplemented by Nike-Hercules anti-aircraft 
missile sites, ringing both Fairbanks and Anchorage. 

The air defenses are bolstered by two Army battle groups, 
one at Fort Richardson near Anchorage and one at Fort Wain- 
wright near Fairbanks. 

Except for a handful of Marines at the Kodiak and Adak 
Naval bases, these are the only "real fighting personnel" in the 
forty-ninth state. 

Fort Greely, an extensive Army base near Big Delta is a 
training ground and winter equipment testing center. 


The economic importance of defense in Hawaii is fully recog- 
nized. It has become the greatest single factor affecting business, 
income and employment. 

Less obvious perhaps is the military importance of the econ- 
omy of the Islands in strengthening defense potentials here. It 
provides (1) skilled and semiskilled personnel (as maintenance 
and repair men for ships, planes and military installations; as 

* From Hawaii: Patterns of Island Growth; 1958 mid-year report. Bank of Hawaii. 
Department of Business Research. Honolulu. '58. p 27-8. Reprinted by permission. 


nurses and assistants in hospitals; and as accountants, statisticians 
and clerks in records and supply offices) ; (2) manned equipment 
for dredging operations and for the construction of installations 
and military housing; (3) food and other locally produced items; 
(4) reserve supplies of mainland products warehoused by local 
firms; (5) links between military and local utility systems, thus 
increasing potential capacity and supplying emergency services 
when needed; and (6) a wide range of recreational facilities and 
direct personal services for members of the Armed Forces. 

In a crisis such aids can be increased manyfold as they were 
during World War II. Thus the larger and stronger the economy, 
the more it can contribute to the manpower, the materials' base 
and the staying power of defense forces in the event of an 

This interdependence of military and economic strength is 
recognized in Hawaii by a unique military-civilian organization 
the "Kokua Council" comprised of high ranking military 
officials and leading businessmen. It meets periodically for frank, 
off-the-record conferences on local problems and has been a 
potent factor in creating mutually helpful relations between the 
military and civilian communities. 

From the time Hawaii became a part of the United States 
in 1900 to 1935 defense expenditures here were a minor factor in 
Hawaiian business. In 1935 they amounted to only about one 
tenth of the aggregate value of sugar and pineapple. During 
1936-41, they rose sharply, and since then have been of primary 

At present military personnel, civilian defense employees and 
the dependents of both groups constitute approximately one 
fourth of the population of the territory. The outward evidence 
of this is the system of highways between Honolulu and the 
primary defense installations by far the largest and most heavily 
traveled in the territory. 

Counting military personnel stationed here, one in four of 
our entire population is thus directly dependent on defense for a 
living and substantial numbers are indirectly and partially 
dependent on it. Practically every wholesale, retail and service 
enterprise on Oahu enjoys at least some patronage from military 
or defense workers' families, and a number of large firms provide 


goods or construction and maintenance services under military 

In 1957 military expenditures in the territory totaled $308 
million (more than the aggregate dollar volume of sugar, pine- 
apple and minor exports) . 

[By 1960, according to Hawaii: Planning for Economic 
Growth, the 1961 annual economic report of the Bank of Hawaii 
Department of Business Research, defense expenditures had risen 
to $373 million and were still rising. The number of civilians 
employed in the defense establishments had reached 24,200 in 
June 1961, and the armed forces personnel totaled 53,000. Ed,] 



An asterisk (*) preceding a reference indicates that the article or a 
part of it has been reprinted in this book. 

Adams, Ben. Alaska: the big land. Hill & Wang. New York. '59. 

Alaska. Department of Agriculture and the University of Alaska. Agri- 
culture in Alaska. Supt of Docs. Washington 25, D.G. '58. 

Alaska. Department of Natural Resources. Division of Mines and Min- 
erals. Report for the year 1961. The Division. Juneau. '61. 

Alaska. Employment Security Commission. Job facts. The Commission. 
Juneau. F. '59. 

Alaska Legislative Council. Final report on borough government, 
mimeo. Local Affairs Agency. Box 710. Juneau. Ja. '61. 

Alaska Legislative Council. Legislative apportionment in Alaska, 1912- 
61. The Council. Box 2199. Juneau. '62. 

Alaska Legislative Council. Legislative handbook on Alaska state gov- 
ernment. The Council. Box 2199. Juneau. '63. 

Alaska Legislative Council. Revenue and taxation in Alaska. 2 parts. 
The Council Box 2199. Juneau. Ja. '62. 

Alaska. Resource Development Board. Alaska fact sheet The Board. 
Box 2391. Juneau. '62. 

Alaska. State Board of Education. Foundation for Alaska's public 
schools; report of a survey, mimeo. Juneau. S. *61. 

Aller, Curtis. Labor relations in the Hawaiian sugar industry. Univer- 
sity of California. Institute of Industrial Relations. Berkeley. '57. 

*Bank of Hawaii. Department of Business Research. Annual and mid- 
year economic reports, 1958-62. The Bank. Honolulu. '58-'62. 

Reprinted in this book: Hawaii: Patterns of island growth; 1958 mid-year 
report, p 27-8. 

Brinsmade, E. M. Books on Alaska for young people. Adler's Book 

Shop. Box 1599. Fairbanks, Alaska. '61. 

Carrighar, Sally. Moonlight at midday. Knopf. New York. '58. 
Chegaray, Jacques. Hawaii: isles of dreams. Sterling. New York. *59. 
Conservation Foundation. Alaska outdoor recreation potential; report 

to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission by the 

Conservation Foundation. Supt of Docs. Washington 25, D.C. 


Day, A. G. Hawaii and its people. Duell. New York. '55. 
Day, A. G. Hawaii: 50th star. Duell. New York. '60. 


Durand, Loyal, Jr. Hawaii. (Focus, v 9, no 9) American Geographical 

Society. New York. *59. 

Edelman, Lily. Hawaii, U.S.A. Nelson. New York. '60. 
Erskine, W. F. White water; an Alaskan adventure. Abelard-Schuman. 

London. *60. 
First National Bank of Hawaii. Department of Economic Research. 

Brief review of Hawaii for the businessman. The Bank. P.O. Box 

3200. Honolulu. '60. 
First National Bank of Seattle. Department of Economic Research. 

Alaska, frontier for industry. The Bank. Seattle. F. '59. 
Fisher, F. R. ed. Man living in the Arctic. National Academy of 

Sciences-National Research Council. Washington, D.C. '61. 
*Fuchs 5 L. H. Hawaii pono: a social history. Harcourt New York. 

Hawaii. Department of Economic Development. Bring your business 

imagination to Hawaii. The Department. Honolulu. '61. 
Hawaii. Department of Economic Development. Facts in focus. The 

Department Honolulu. '61. 
Hawaii. Department of Economic Development. Information locator: 

where to obtain information about Hawaii. The Department. 

Honolulu. '62. 
Hawaii. Department of Planning and Research. Geographic statistics 

for Hawaii. (Research Report no 15) mimeo. The Department. 

Honolulu. Ja. 15, '62. 
Hawaii. Department of Planning and Research. Hawaiian migration, 

1950-61. R. C. Schmitt (Research Report 21) mimeo. The De- 
partment. Honolulu. '62. 
Hawaii. Department of Planning and Research. Military Statistics for 

Hawaii, 1961-62. (Research Report 16) mimeo. The Department 

Honolulu. '62. 
Hawaii. Department of Planning and Research. Population projections 

for Hawaii, 1960-80. (Research Report 10) mimeo. The Depart- 
ment. Honolulu. "61. 
Hawaii. Department of Planning and Research. Research Division. 

Statistics on the fine arts in Hawaii. (Research Report 17) mimeo. 

The Department Honolulu. '62. 
Hawaii. Economic Planning and Coordination Authority. Major 

landholdings in Hawaii: ownership patterns and leasing policies. 

(Report no 14) The Authority. Honolulu. F. '57. 
Hawaii. Governor's Advisory Committee on Finance. State of Hawaii's 

finances, '60-'62. Department of Budget and Review, Honolulu. 

Hawaii. Governor's Committee on Education Beyond High School. 

Education beyond the high school in Hawaii, 1958-1968. The 

Committee. Honolulu. *59. 


Hawaii. State Planning Office. Provisional estimates and projections of 

the civilian population of Hawaii, 1940-1980. (Staff Research Memo 

30) The Office, Honolulu. '60. 
Hawaii Visitors Bureau. 1962 annual program and research report 

The Bureau. Honolulu. '62. 
Hawaii book; story of our island paradise. J. G. Ferguson, Chicago. 


Hulley, C. C. Alaska: past and present Bmfords. Portland, Ore. '59. 
Kamins, R. M. Tax problems and fiscal policy in Hawaii. (Report no 1, 

1962) University of Hawaii. Legislative Reference Bureau. Hono- 
lulu. '62. 
*Kursh, Harry. This is Alaska. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 

Kuykendall, R. S. and Day, A. G. Hawaii: a history; from Polynesian 

kingdom to American state. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 

Lau, K. K. Structure of the Hawaii state government. University of 

Hawaii. Legislative Reference Bureau. Honolulu. '60. 
*Masuoka, Jitsuichi and Valien, Preston, eds. Race relations: problems 

and theory, essays in honor of Robert E. Park. University of North 

Carolina. Chapel Hill. '61. 

Reprinted in this book: Race relations frontiers in Hawaii, p 58-71. A. "W. 

Moore, Terris. Alaska (Focus, v 13, no 3) American Geographical 
Society. New York. '62. 

Okakok, Guy. Okakok's Alaska; selections from Pt. Barrow News, sub- 
mitted to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 1955-1959. P. E. O. 
Sisterhood. 303 Cowles St. Fairbanks. '59. 

Palmer, Artis. There's no place like Nome. Morrow. New York ""63. 

Riwkin-Brick, Anna and Soderberg, Eugenie. Hawaii, a way of life. 
Macmillan. New York. '62. 

Roberts, H. S. Labor-management relations in Hawaii. University of 
Hawaii. Industrial Relations Center. Honolulu. Ag. '62. 

Rogers, G. W. Alaska in transition; the southeast region. Johns Hopkins 
Press. Baltimore. '60. 

Rogers, G. W. The future of Alaska: economic consequences of state- 
hood. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore. '62. 

Thomas, Tay. Follow the North star. Doubleday. Garden City, N.Y. 

Tuttle, Daniel, Jr. and others, comps. Hawaii Democratic and Repub- 
lican party platforms, 1952-1962. University of Hawaii. Depart- 
ment of Government. Honolulu. '62. 


United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on State Department Organization 
and Foreign Operations. Center for cultural and technical inter- 
change between East and West (East- West center); hearings, 
December 13, 1961-January 8, 1962. 87th Congress, 2d session. 
The Committee. Washington 25, D.C. *62. 

United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. Subcommittee on State Department Organization and 
Foreign Operations. Center for cultural and technical interchange 
between East and West (East-West Center) ; report, July 30, 1962. 
(H. Report no 2060) 87th Congress, 2d session. The Committee. 
Washington 25, D.C. 9 62. 

United States. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands. Alaska 
military land withdrawals; hearings, March 2 and 21, 1961, on 
H.R. 2279 [and other bills]. 87th Congress, 1st session. Supt. of 
Docs. Washington 25, D.C. '61. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Agriculture and For- 
estry. Subcommittee on Agricultural Production, Marketing and 
Stabilization of Prices. Agricultural land development in Alaska; 
hearings, August 10, 1962 on S. 2805, a bill to provide for a pro- 
gram of agricultural land development in the state of Alaska. 87th 
Congress, 2d session. The Committee. Washington 25, D.C. '62. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Alaska 
and Hawaii through routes and joint rates; report, August 1, 1962 
[to accompany H.R. 11643]. (S. Report no 1799). 87th Congress, 
2d session. The Committee. Washington 25, D.C. '62. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. Alaska omnibus bill; report, May 28, 1959, to accompany 
S. 1541. (Senate Report no 331) 86th Congress, 1st session. Supt. 
of Docs. Washington 25, D.C. '59. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. Subcommittee on Public Lands. Mineral rights for Alaska 
homesteaders; hearings, June 19, 1959-May 25, 1960, on S. 1670. 
86th Congress, 1st and 2d sessions. Supt. of Docs. Washington 25, 
D.C. '59- '60. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Mar- 
ket for Rampart power, Yukon river, Alaska. 87th Congress, 2d 
session. Supt. of Docs. Washington 25, D.C. *62. 

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Public Works. Study 
of highway program for Alaska; hearing before a subcommittee on 
SJ. Res. 137, February 27, 1962. 87th Congress, 2d session. Supt 
of Docs. Washington 25, D.C. '62. 


United States. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. 
Alaska: general population characteristics. (United States census of 
population: 1960, final report PC(1)-3B) Supt of Docs. Wash- 
ington 25, D.C. '61. 

United States. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Alaska: 
general social and economic characteristics. (United States census 
of population: I960, final report PC(1)-3C) Supt. of Docs. Wash- 
ington 25, D.C. '61. 

United States. Department of Commerce. Business and Defense Serv- 
ices Administration. Alaska: its economy and market potential 
Supt. of Docs. Washington 25, D.C. '59. 

* United States. Department of Defense. Office of Armed Forces Infor- 

mation and Education. Pocket guide to Alaska. (DOD Pam 2-9) 
The Department. Washington 25, D.C. '56. 

*United States. Department of Defense. Office of Armed Forces Infor- 
mation and Education. Pocket guide to Hawaii. (DOD Pam 2-1) 
The Department. Washington 25, D.C. '55. 

United States. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Manage- 
ment Establishing a farm in Alaska. The Bureau. Washington 25, 
D.C. '61. 

*United States. Library of Congress. Legislative Reference Service. 
Centralization of government in Hawaii. W. B. Graves, mimeo. 
The Library. Washington 25, D.C. '62. 

University of Hawaii. Legislative Reference Bureau. Digest and index 
of laws enacted and final status table of bills, urgency measures, 
and resolutions. The Bureau. Honolulu. Je. '62. 

University of Hawaii. Legislative Reference Bureau. Hawaii state gov- 
ernment organization, selected memoranda. 2v. The Bureau. 
Honolulu. *59. 

Winslow, Kathryn. Alaska bound. Dodd, New York '60. 

Yukiko, Kimura. Social-historical background of the Okinawans in 
Hawaii. (Report no 36) University of Hawaii. Romanzo Adams 
Social Research Laboratory. Honolulu. '62. 


America. 100:635-6. F. 28, *59. Hawaii, our 50th state. B. J. Hartung. 

America. 107:661-2. S. 1, '62. Freeze-out in Alaska. 

*American Bar Association Journal. 44:1147-50. D. *58. Alaska's herald- 
ed constitution: the forty-ninth state sets an example. J. S. Hellen- 

* American Bar Association Journal. 45:1145-8+. N. '59. The Hawaiian 

constitution: a structure for good government. P. C. Bartholomew 
and R. M. Kamins. 


American City. 75:121+. Ja. '60. Hawaii, the state without a city. 

W. S. Foster. 

American Forests. 65:12-134-. Jl. '59. Exploring Alaska. H. H. Bennett 
American Forests. 66:14-16+. Ja. *60. Alaska. R. G. Lynch. 
American Forests. 68:20-2+. Je. '62. Hawaii's newest park. John 

American Forests. 69:28-9+. Ja. *63. Hop and jump surveying. E. W. 


American Forests. 69:32-4+. Ja. J 63. Visit to a volcano. J. T. Harrold. 
American Heritage. 11:10-14+. F. '60. Isles shall wait for his law. 

Bradford Smith. 
American Heritage. 12:44-7+. D. '60. Seward's wise folly. R. L. 

American Heritage. 12:64-79. F. '61. Billy Mitchell in Alaska. William 

American Heritage. 13:60-72+. D. '61. Captain Cook's American. 

E. M. Halliday, 
American Heritage. 13:74-5. F. '62. Billy Mitchell's prophecy; excerpt 

from report of 1924. William Mitchell. 

American Home. 61:11-14+. Ja. '59. We live in Alaska and love itl 
*Americas. 13:10-13. S. '61. New Alaskan Eskimo. W. H. Oswalt 
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 335: 

38-41. My. '61. University of Hawaii orientation center. S. F. 


Antiques. 77:576-7. Je. '60. Knapp paintings of Alaska. P. W. Inman. 
Architectural Forum. 114:110-12. Je. '61. Capitol for the 50th state. 
Architectural Record. 129:153-6. Je. '61. New capitol for the newest 


Atlantic Monthly. 210:73-8. S. '62. Alaska: last frontier. Paul Brooks. 
Aviation Week and Space Technology. 71:43+. N. 16, '59. Hawaiian 

bids for new Pacific routes. L. L. Doty. 

Aviation Week and Space Technology. 75:115+. Ag. 14, '61. Alaska air- 
lines to use, sell Lockheed 60s. A. Sherman. 
Better Homes and Gardens. 40:20+. Ja. '62. What it's like to move to 

Hawaii. Bob Krauss. 
Business Week, p 140-2+. Mr. 14, '59. Hawaii: set to become an 

island state. 

Business Week, p 201-2. Je. 20, *59. Challenge to Hawaiian tycoon. 
Business Week, p 168-70+. N. 28, '59. Mainlanders take over in 


Business Week, p 196+. Mr. 19, '60. Company store. 
Business Week, p 141-2+. S. 17, '60. All-out union drive in Hawaii: 

labor leaders are competing among one another to sign up the 

160,000 unorganized workers. 


Business Week, p 57-8+. O. 29, '60. Hawaii's boom keeps climbing. 
Business Week, p 124-K O. 28, '61. Hawaii giant Jumps to East coast. 
Business Week, p 98. O. 20, '62. In Hawaii's bars, it's ti for two; 

liquor called okolehao. 
Business Week p 81-2. F. 2, '63. Personal business: winter vacation 

in Oahu. 

Christian Century. 76:349. Mr. 25, '59. Hawaii honors its founders. 
Christian Century. 76:565. My. 6, '59; 77:1390. N. 23, '60. News of 

the Christian world. 
Christian Century. 76:916. Ag. 12, 5 59. Hawaii's electorate makes good 

Christian Century. 80:54. Ja. 9; 80:374. Mr. 20, '63. News of the 

Christian world. 
Christian Science Monitor, p 11. Jl. 3, '58. Alaska: welcome! Hal 


Commonweal. 69:661-2. Mr. 27, '59. Hawaiian statehood. 
Congressional Digest. 38:3-32. Ja. '59. Question of statehood for 


* Congressional Record. 105:6818-19. Ap. 27, '59. Military defense of 

Alaska. Ernest Gruening; R. L. Neuberger. 

* Congressional Record. 108:A7806-12. O. 19, '62. Four years of un- 

precedented achievement the greatest progress in Alaskan history; 

extension of remarks in the Senate, October 13, 1962. Ernest 


Coronet. 48:136+. Je. '60. World's roughest police beat. C. E. Hinkson. 
Current History. 36:241-2. Ap. '59. Alaska: the forty-ninth state; 

Proclamation; Flag of the United States. D. D. Eisenhower. 
Current History. 41:108-13. Ag. '61. Hawaii: equalization through 

centralization. H. V. Everly. 
Dance Magazine. 34:44-7. Ag. '60. Renascence in Hawaii. Janet 

Department of State Bulletin. 42:130-1. Ja. 25, '60. Secretary sends 

report to Congress on East- West Center in Hawaii. C. A. Herter. 
Esquire. 56:88-90. Ag. '61. Happiest Hawaiians; beach boys. Charlotte 

*Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (Progress Edition), p 32C. N. 28, '62. 

Strategically, Alaska is first defense line. 

Field & Stream. 64:62-6+. My. '59. Trailer trek to Alaska. Jack Parry. 
*Financial Analysts Journal. 16:31-42. Ja.-F. '60. Alaska: the economic 

outlook. Ivan Bloch. 

Flying. 65:30-1+. D. '59. Is Alaska expendable? Dave Lewis. 
Fortune. 60:139-43. D. '59. To Alaska through a rugged frontier. 
*Fortune. 61:124-33+. Je. '60. Hawaii's a-poppin'. R. A. Smith. 
Hobbies. 64:116-18. N. '59. Hawaii, our 50th state. Louise Collins. 


Hobbles. 66:112-13+. JL J 6L Hawaii: some early letters. D. H. 


Holiday. 26:26-454-. Ag. '59. Alaska. J. W. Bellah. 
Holiday. 28:34-55+. JL '60. Hawaii. Robert Carson. 
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Ja. 29, '63. Annual progress edition [Articles 

on all phases of Hawaii] . 

Horticulture. 39:272. My. '61. Hawaii, our fiftieth state. 
House & Garden. 116:34+. JL '59. Going places, finding things. Louise 

House Beautiful. 103:78+. S. J 6L Hawaii: a great state to be in. 

Marion Gough. 
*Indian Truth. 38:1-8. O. 9 61. Indian rights and wrongs in Alaska. 

T. B. Hetzel. 
Life. 46:14-21. Ja. 26, *59. Living at 30 below: Alaska thrives amid 

winter gloom. 
Life. 46:37-40. Mr. 16, '59. Happy caravan of modern pioneers; 

Detroiters bound for Alaska. 

Life. 46:58-72. Mr. 23, '59. Hawaii: beauty, wealth, amiable people. 
Life. 46:75-6. Mr. 23, '59. Pros and cons of Island statehood. Peter 

Life. 46:24-5. Mr. 30, '59. Sorely beset 5 59ers carry on; band of 

Life. 46:141-3. Ap. 20, '59. '59ers find promised land; pioneers from 


Life. 47:41-2+. Ag. 17, '59. Unique Hawaiian look in politics. 
Life. 47:37-40. Ag. 31, '59. Hawaii's sunny summer school. 
Life. 47:49-52. N. 30, '59. '59ers, now thirteen dig in for winter. 
Life. 48:30-1. Ap. 25, '60. Census trek in newest state. 
Life, 48:32-5. Ap. 25, '60. For every enumerator hard-to-avoid perils. 
Life, 50:87-95. F. 10, '61. Dillinghams of Hawaii. 
Living Wilderness. 77:37. Summer '61. Wilderness first policy ad- 
Look. 23:29-31. My. 12, '59. Hawaii, state-to-be where many bloodlines 

blend in beauty. G. B. Leonard, Jr. 

McCalFs. 89:228D. O. '61. McCall's visits Hawaii. Horace Sutton. 
Mademoiselle. 50:126-9+. Ap. '60. Hedonists in Hawaii; summer 

school. R. Dionne. 

Mademoiselle. 51:143-5+. My. '60. Unfettered life. M. B. Parkinson. 
Mademoiselle. 56:18+. Ja. '63. Let's travel. 
Mademoiselle. 56:64+. Ja. '63. Hawaii's neighbor islands. Katharine 


Military Review. 41:44-56. F. '61. Alaska: Gibraltar of the North. 
Willard Pearson. 


Monthly Labor Review. 84:459-62. My. '61. Government and bargain- 
ing on the Alaska railroad. E. M. Fitch. 
Monthly Labor Review. 85:296-300. Mr. '62. Indexes of living costs 

for Alaskan cities. J. C. Brackett 
Motor Boating. 107:46-7-4-. My. '61. Icebergs in your ice box. Jean 

Motor Boating. 110:42-4+. D. '62. Cruising the Hawaiian Islands, 

family style. Marian Rumsey. 

Nation. 189:166-9. S. 26, '59. Alaska's '59ers. O'Carroll Colvin, 
National Business Woman. 38:10-11+. Jl. '59. Fiftieth state. Pauline 


National Education Association Journal. 48:32-3. Ap. *59. Alaska. 
National Education Association Journal. 48:32-3. My. *59. 50th star. 
National Geographic Magazine. 115:792-823. Je. '59. Volcanic fires 

of the 50th state. P. A. Zahl. 
National Geographic Magazine. 116:42-83. JL '59. Alaska proudly joins 

the Union. E. H. Gruening. 
National Geographic Magazine. 118:1-45. Jl. '60. Hawaii, U.SA. 

Frederick Simpich, Jr. 
Natural History. 69:6-23. Ja. '60. Landscapes of far Alaska. T. M. 

Natural History. 69:36-47. My. '60. First Hawaiians: Polynesian 

pioneers. Edward Joesting. 

New Republic. 140:8. Mr. 23, '59. Idiocy as a catalyst. G. W. Johnson. 
New York Times, p 1+. Ag. 22, '59. Hawaii becomes the 50th state; 

new flag shown. W. H. Lawrence. 
*New York Times, p 1+. O. 16, '60. Hawaii is termed governmental 

paradise. Gene Smith. 
New York Times, p 1+. Mr. 13, '61. Hawaii drafts 703-million plan 

of development over 20 years. 
New York Times, p 38. N. 9, '62. Voters reject proposal to move 

capital from Juneau. 

New York Times, p 125. N. 11, '62. Only 17 of Michigan home- 
steaders who went to Susitna Valley in '59 still there. 
New York Times Magazine, p 82-3. F. 15, '59. Faces of the 49th; 

photographs. S. Carrighar. 
*New York Times Magazine, p 12+. Mr. 15, '59. Communique from 

our Alaskan outpost. H. W. Baldwin. 

Reply with rejoinder, p 62. Ap. 26, '59. E. L. Bartlett and others. 

*New York Times Magazine, p 14+. Ap. 19, *59. 'Aloha' for the 

fiftieth state. J. A. Michener. 

New Yorker. 35:20-2. Ag. 29, '59. Our own Baedeker. 
New Yorker. 36:98+. Ap. 2, '60. Reporter at large. E. J. Kahn, Jr. 
*News Explorer, p 2. Ap. 17, '59. Hawaii, our fiftieth state. 

Reprinted in this book: Map of Hawaii. 


Newsweek. 53:29-32. F. 23, '59. Enchanting state. 

Newsweek. 53:28-9. Mr. 23, '59. We all haoles. 

Newsweek 53:24. Je. 22, '59. Old island custom; Hawaiian territorial 

Newsweek 54:21-2. JL 13, '59. No fifty on the stump. 

Newsweek 54:22-3. Ag. 10, '59. Surprise: three to two. 

Newsweek 54:19-20. Ag. 31, '59. Yankee Doodle dandy. 

Newsweek 54:68-70-f-. S. 7, '59. Hawaii's progress and prospects. 
R. E. Cubbedge. 

Newsweek 54:60. S. 14, '59. Map-making. 

Newsweek 57:29. Ja. 16, '61. Facing the cold facts. 

Newsweek 58:72-3. JL 31, '61. History, hula, hoopla; summer school. 

Newsweek 59:84. Ap. 2, '62. Trouble in Hawaii; East-West center. 

Newsweek. 59:39-40. Ap. 9, '62. Eye-catching race. 

Newsweek. 59:106. Ap. 16, '62. Ukuleles are not enough. 

Newsweek 59:25. Ap. 30, '62. Paradise lost; crack down on kites. 

Newsweek 59:72+. Ap. 30, '62. Pineapple squeeze. 

Newsweek 60:22. D. 10, '62. Manaua's mercy; Hawaii's second 
drought in two years. 

Parliamentary Affairs. 13:489-508. Autumn '60. Hawaii: the fiftieth 
state. Norman Meller. 

Personnel and Guidance Journal. 39:292-9. D. '60. Survey of student 
attitudes towards campus activities at the University of Hawaii. 
R. A. Kalish and O. J. Bartos. 

Popular Mechanics. 112:57-61. JL '59. Alaska's flying bus line. G. X. 

Popular Mechanics. 112:84-90+. S. '59. Other side of paradise. R. M. 

Popular Mechanics. 112:117-22+. N. '59. Toughest railroad you tax- 
payers own. G. X. Sand. 

Public Health Reports. 76:1063-79. D. '61. Hawaiian health. 

Saturday Evening Post. 231:19-21+. My. 2, '59. Prosperity hits para- 
dise. F. J. Taylor. 

Saturday Evening Post. 232:10. S. 12, '59. Hawaii can sponsor seminars 
as well as beauty contests. 

Saturday Evening Post. 235:26-9. Ag. 25, '62. Hawaii's hustling shep- 
herd. F. J. Taylor. 

Saturday Review. 42:62-5. My. 16, '59. Honshu, Hawaii, home. Horace 

Saurday Review. 42:35-7. S. 5, '59. Alaska: new gold rush. Horace 

Saturday Review. 42:32-3. S. 12, *59. Anchorage away. Horace Sutton. 

Saturday Review. 42:34-5. O. 3, '59. Paradise in limbo. Horace Sutton. 


Saturday Review. 43:44+. N. 12, '60. Where the twain will meet. 

Horace Sutton, 
Saturday Review. 43:50. N. 12, *60. Midnight in Kailua. Daniel 

Saturday Review. 45:39-41. D. 8, '62. Hawaii is to hear. Andre 

Science Digest. 53:58-65. My. '63. Henry Kaiser: new project, Hawaii- 

Kai. Leona Elliott. 

Science News Letter. 75:6. Ja. 3, '59. Southeast Alaska rises. 
Science News Letter. 76:46. Jl. 18, '59. Citizens of Hawaii outlive 


Science News Letter. 79:311. My. 20, '61. Ancient Hawaiians. 
*Senior Scholastic. 56:10-11. My. 17, '50. Alaska: next stop statehood? 

Reprinted in this book: Map of Alaska, p 10. 
Senior Scholastic. 74:8-9+. Ja. 30, '59. 50th star for Hawaii? pro and 

con discussion. 

Senior Scholastic. 74:16. Ap. 3, '59. Hawaii wins our fiftieth star. 
Senior Scholastic. 74:12-15. Ap. 10, '59. Aloha Hawaiil 
Senior Scholastic (Teacher Edition). 76:19T. Mr. 2, '60. Lush land 

of luaus and leis. Naomi Rmehart. 
*Social Legislation Information Service Bulletin (Washington Bulletin). 

82:540-7. N. 25, '58. 49th state. 

*Social Process. 25:12-14. 5 61-'62. Hawaii in the race relations con- 
tinuum of the Pacific. A. W. Lind. 
Sports Illustrated. 16:58-65. Mr. 12, '62. Risk and challenge of the 

adventure road. Dolly Connelly. 
Sports Illustrated. 17:66-70+. Ag. 20, '62. Outer islands: miracles and 

prophecies. Gilbert Rogin. 

* State Government. 31:202-8. Autumn '58. Alaska's struggle for state- 
hood. R. B. Atwood. 
*State Government. 31:215-19. Autumn '58. Meaning of statehood 

to Alaska. T. B. Stewart. 
*State Government. 32:146-61. Summer '59. Hawaii: the aloha state. 

W. F. Quinn; Statehood and Hawaii's people. J. A. Burns; What 

statehood means to Hawaii. R. M. Kamins. 

Reprinted in this book: What statehood means to Hawaii. R. M. Kamins. 
p 156-61. 

State Government 33:210-16. Autumn '60. Aloha, malahini C. S. 

James and K. K. Lau. 
State Government. 34:226-32. Autumn '61. State planning in Hawaii. 

Frank Lombardi. 

Sunset. 124:41+. Mr. '60. Long drive to Alaska. 
Sunset. 126:26+. Mr. '61. Around the bend, wilderness; Wailua River 

excursion, Hawaii. 
Sunset. 128:82+. My. *62. Bike cruising in the islands. 


Sunset 129:16. S. '62. Honolulu's big aloha on boat day. 

Time. 74:12-24. Ag. 10, '59. Big change. 

Time. 75:25. Ap. 25, '60. First year on the Susitna; Fifty-niners. 

Time. 75:42+. My. 2, '60. Upgrading in Alaska. 

Time. 78:46-1-. Jl. 21, *61, Awakening in Hawaii. 

Time. 80:21. O. 5, '62. Big Ben S young Danny. 

Time. 80:82. O. 19, '62. Flight of the five. 

Travel. 112:22-6. D. '59. Hawaii's new state. Peter Espie. 

Travel. 115:54-6+. Ap. '61. Editor's report: Hawaii. M. M. Davis. 

Travel 118:40-4. O. *62. By freighter around Hawaii. T. B. Lesure. 

Travel. !19:6~4. Ap. '63. New route to Alaska; marine highway. 

U.S. News & World Report 46:101-3. F. 13, '59. If Hawaii becomes 

the 50th state. 
U.S. News & World Report. 46:52-3. Mr. 23 S '59. Now that Hawaii 

is to be a state. 
U.S. News & World Report. 46:78-81. Mr. 30, '59. Sun, sugar, people, 

U.S. News & World Report. 46:80-1. Mr. 30, '59. Where Hawaii stands 

on taxes, labor, races; interview. W. F. Quinn. 
U.S. News & World Report. 47:67-70. Jl. 13, '59. State of Alaska one 

year after. 
U.S. News & World Report. 50:76-9. Ja. 9, '61. Big boom in the 

50th state. 
U.S. News & World Report. 51:90-1. Jl. 17, '61. Thinking of driving 

to the 49th state? 
U.S. News World Report. 51:50-2. S. 4, '61. Fresh look at the 

49th state and how ifs making out 
*U.S. News & World Report 52:65-8. Mr. 19, '62. 49th state; three 

years later. 
Wall Street Journal. 158:14-. Jl. 27, '61. Alaska's economy: it's hard 

hit by shifts in defense emphasis, high cost of statehood. R. ]. 

Wall Street Journal. 159:1+. Je. 26, '62. Clouds over Hawaii: tourists 

spend less; sugar, fruit industries slip in world markets; construc- 
tion activity off; key prop: military outlays. N. C. Miller, Jr. 
Wall Street Journal. 160:1+. Jl. 12, '62. Well-developed state of 

Hawaii is stirred by land reform issue. N. C. Miller, Jr. 
Yale Review. 52:72-89. O. '62. Oil barrels and muk-tuk: an Arctic 

year. Daniel McKinley.